[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Jindrich Makovicka wrote: >> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:49:02 +0200 >> "Jindrich Makovicka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> On 9/10/07, Dong, Eddie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> div64_32 is enough, does this function exist? >>>> >>> afaik, __div64_32 is architecture specific, but do_div() could be >>> actually used here. >>> >> >> This version should be faster. >> >> > > [please don't post patches with extensions like ".diff2", which don't > show in the mail reader] > >> - u32 counter_passed; >> + u64 counter_passed; >> ktime_t passed, now = apic->timer.dev.base->get_time(); >> u32 tmcct = apic_get_reg(apic, APIC_TMICT); >> >> @@ -512,8 +512,8 @@ static u32 apic_get_tmcct(struct kvm_lapic >> *apic) } else passed = ktime_sub(now, >> apic->timer.last_update); >> >> - counter_passed = div64_64(ktime_to_ns(passed), >> - (APIC_BUS_CYCLE_NS * >> apic->timer.divide_count)); + counter_passed = >> ktime_to_ns(passed); + do_div(counter_passed, >> APIC_BUS_CYCLE_NS * apic->timer.divide_count); >> tmcct -= counter_passed; > > What if counter_passed overflows? Sure, that means kvm wasn't > scheduled for 4 seconds, but it could happen. > > It won't happen. see passed = ktime_sub(now, apic->timer.last_update);
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
