On Mon, 25 May 2009 14:51:32 +0200 Stanislaw Gruszka <sgrus...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2009 14:32:14 +0200 (CEST) > Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote: > > > On Mon, 25 May 2009, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > > > @@ -904,6 +905,7 @@ void __init time_init(void) > > > tb_ticks_per_usec = ppc_tb_freq / 1000000; > > > tb_to_us = mulhwu_scale_factor(ppc_tb_freq, 1000000); > > > calc_cputime_factors(); > > > + cputime_one = jiffies_to_cputime(1); > > > > 1) The variable name is misleading. > > What about cputime_one_jiffy ? > > > 2) The patch breaks all powerpc platforms which have > > CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=n and ia64 with > > CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y > > Stupid me, in asm-generic/cputime.h should be > #define cputime_one jiffies_to_cputime(1) Hmmm, I'm confused. Perhaps I missed something, but I think patch was ok. For powerpc and ia64 and CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=n definitions from asm-generic/cputime.h where used. In this file was: #define cputime_one (1UL) and that correct as jiffies_to_cputime(x) is just (x) For CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUTING=y: - For powerpc additional variable was declared and computed in initialization time. Declaration of was in __KERENEL__ scope. - For ia64: cputime_one was defined as jiffies_to_cputime(1) Anyway I didn't try to even compile the patch on other architectures than x86. Of cource I will test my patch, but first I would like to know what You think? Does we really need such optimization (because before usage of jiffies_to_cputime(1) was just fine) ? Cheers Stanislaw _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
