Hi Hans,
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Hans Petter Selasky <h...@selasky.org> wrote:
> On 06/05/15 20:31, Neel Natu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> - runs = 0;
>>>> >>- while (now >= state->nexthard) {
>>>> >>- state->nexthard += tick_sbt;
>>>> >>- runs++;
>>>> >>- }
>>>> >>- if (runs) {
>>>> >>+ runs = (now - state->nexthard) / tick_sbt;
>>>> >>+ if (runs > 0) {
>>>> >>+ printf("R%d ", (int)runs);
>>>> >>+ state->nexthard += tick_sbt * runs;
>>>> >> hct = DPCPU_PTR(hardclocktime);
>>>> >> *hct = state->nexthard - tick_sbt;
>>>> >> if (fake < 2) {
>>
>> There is a difference in behavior in the two implementations when 'now
>> == state->nexthard'. In the loop-based implementation this would end
>> up with 'runs = 1' whereas in the division-based implementation it
>> would end up with 'runs = 0'.
>>
>> I am not sure if this is intentional or just an oversight.
>
>
> Hi Neel,
>
> The nexthard is mainly updated in this piece of code. We can assume that
> "state->nexthard" is aligned to "ticks_sbt". If "state->nexthard % ticks_sbt
> == 0", is that still an issue?
>
I am not very familiar with this subsystem to make the call (mav@ or
davide@ would know for sure though).
I just noticed a discrepancy in the patch and wanted to highlight that
in case it might be an issue.
best
Neel
> --HPS
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
