Re: [patch] x86: scale cyc_2_nsec according to CPU frequency

2007-12-08 Thread Arjan van de Ven
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 20:16:29 +0100 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Firstly, we dont need the 'offset' anymore because > > > > > cpu_clock() maintains offsets itself. > > > > > > > > Yes, but a lower quality one.

Re: [patch] x86: scale cyc_2_nsec according to CPU frequency

2007-12-08 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Firstly, we dont need the 'offset' anymore because cpu_clock() > > > > maintains offsets itself. > > > > > > Yes, but a lower quality one. __update_rq_clock tries to > > > compensate large jumping clocks with a jiffy resolution, while my

Re: [patch] x86: scale cyc_2_nsec according to CPU frequency

2007-12-08 Thread Arjan van de Ven
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:52:06 +0100 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Guillaume Chazarain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Le Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:55:25 +0100, > > Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a ??crit : > > > > > Firstly, we dont need the 'offset' anymore because cpu_clock() > > >

Re: [patch] x86: scale cyc_2_nsec according to CPU frequency

2007-12-08 Thread Arjan van de Ven
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:52:06 +0100 Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Guillaume Chazarain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:55:25 +0100, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] a ??crit : Firstly, we dont need the 'offset' anymore because cpu_clock() maintains offsets

Re: [patch] x86: scale cyc_2_nsec according to CPU frequency

2007-12-08 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Firstly, we dont need the 'offset' anymore because cpu_clock() maintains offsets itself. Yes, but a lower quality one. __update_rq_clock tries to compensate large jumping clocks with a jiffy resolution, while my offset arranges

Re: [patch] x86: scale cyc_2_nsec according to CPU frequency

2007-12-08 Thread Arjan van de Ven
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 20:16:29 +0100 Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Firstly, we dont need the 'offset' anymore because cpu_clock() maintains offsets itself. Yes, but a lower quality one. __update_rq_clock tries to

Re: [patch] x86: scale cyc_2_nsec according to CPU frequency

2007-12-07 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Guillaume Chazarain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:55:25 +0100, > Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a ??crit : > > > Firstly, we dont need the 'offset' anymore because cpu_clock() > > maintains offsets itself. > > Yes, but a lower quality one. __update_rq_clock tries to

Re: [patch] x86: scale cyc_2_nsec according to CPU frequency

2007-12-07 Thread Guillaume Chazarain
Le Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:55:25 +0100, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > Firstly, we dont need the 'offset' anymore because cpu_clock() maintains > offsets itself. Yes, but a lower quality one. __update_rq_clock tries to compensate large jumping clocks with a jiffy resolution, while my

Re: [patch] x86: scale cyc_2_nsec according to CPU frequency

2007-12-07 Thread Guillaume Chazarain
Le Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:55:25 +0100, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : Firstly, we dont need the 'offset' anymore because cpu_clock() maintains offsets itself. Yes, but a lower quality one. __update_rq_clock tries to compensate large jumping clocks with a jiffy resolution, while my offset

Re: [patch] x86: scale cyc_2_nsec according to CPU frequency

2007-12-07 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Guillaume Chazarain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:55:25 +0100, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] a ??crit : Firstly, we dont need the 'offset' anymore because cpu_clock() maintains offsets itself. Yes, but a lower quality one. __update_rq_clock tries to compensate