Am Samstag, den 01.03.2014, 14:56 -0800 schrieb H. Peter Anvin:
> On 02/28/2014 06:00 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> > This leads to a potentially interesting question: is rdtsc_barrier()
> > actually necessary on UP? IIRC the point is that, if an
> > rdtsc_barrier(); rdtsc in one thread is
Am Samstag, den 01.03.2014, 14:56 -0800 schrieb H. Peter Anvin:
On 02/28/2014 06:00 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
This leads to a potentially interesting question: is rdtsc_barrier()
actually necessary on UP? IIRC the point is that, if an
rdtsc_barrier(); rdtsc in one thread is before (in
On 02/28/2014 06:00 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> This leads to a potentially interesting question: is rdtsc_barrier()
> actually necessary on UP? IIRC the point is that, if an
> rdtsc_barrier(); rdtsc in one thread is "before" (in the sense of
> being synchronized by some memory operation) an
On 02/28/2014 06:00 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
This leads to a potentially interesting question: is rdtsc_barrier()
actually necessary on UP? IIRC the point is that, if an
rdtsc_barrier(); rdtsc in one thread is before (in the sense of
being synchronized by some memory operation) an
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:22 PM, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 26.02.2014, 16:55 -0800 schrieb Andy Lutomirski:
>>
>> Once I patch it to work, your 32-bit code is considerably faster than
>> the 64-bit case. It's enough faster that I suspect a bug. Dumping
>> the in-memory shows
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:22 PM, Stefani Seibold stef...@seibold.net wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 26.02.2014, 16:55 -0800 schrieb Andy Lutomirski:
Once I patch it to work, your 32-bit code is considerably faster than
the 64-bit case. It's enough faster that I suspect a bug. Dumping
the
Am Mittwoch, den 26.02.2014, 16:55 -0800 schrieb Andy Lutomirski:
> Um. This code doesn't work. I'll send a patch. I can't speak
> towards how well it compiles in different configurations.
>
> I can't speak towards how well it compiles in different
> configurations. Also,
* Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 08:34:58PM +0100, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> i still wait for ACK's for the 32 bit VDSO time function support. Whats
> >> the next step? Is there a way to apply it to the
* Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Greg KH gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 08:34:58PM +0100, Stefani Seibold wrote:
Hi,
i still wait for ACK's for the 32 bit VDSO time function support. Whats
the next step? Is
Am Mittwoch, den 26.02.2014, 16:55 -0800 schrieb Andy Lutomirski:
Um. This code doesn't work. I'll send a patch. I can't speak
towards how well it compiles in different configurations.
I can't speak towards how well it compiles in different
configurations. Also, vdso_fallback_gettime
On 02/26/2014 12:54 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 08:34:58PM +0100, Stefani Seibold wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> i still wait for ACK's for the 32 bit VDSO time function support. Whats
>>> the next step? Is there a way to apply
Um. This code doesn't work. I'll send a patch. I can't speak
towards how well it compiles in different configurations.
I can't speak towards how well it compiles in different
configurations. Also, vdso_fallback_gettime needs .cfi annotations, I
think. I could probably dredge the required
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 08:34:58PM +0100, Stefani Seibold wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> i still wait for ACK's for the 32 bit VDSO time function support. Whats
>> the next step? Is there a way to apply it to the linux-git or linux-next
>> in near future?
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 08:34:58PM +0100, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i still wait for ACK's for the 32 bit VDSO time function support. Whats
> the next step? Is there a way to apply it to the linux-git or linux-next
> in near future?
I thought this was already in the tip tree. Didn't the
I'm planning on testing this, hopefully today.
--Andy
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i still wait for ACK's for the 32 bit VDSO time function support. Whats
> the next step? Is there a way to apply it to the linux-git or linux-next
> in near future?
>
> -
Hi,
i still wait for ACK's for the 32 bit VDSO time function support. Whats
the next step? Is there a way to apply it to the linux-git or linux-next
in near future?
- Stefani
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Hi,
i still wait for ACK's for the 32 bit VDSO time function support. Whats
the next step? Is there a way to apply it to the linux-git or linux-next
in near future?
- Stefani
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to
I'm planning on testing this, hopefully today.
--Andy
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Stefani Seibold stef...@seibold.net wrote:
Hi,
i still wait for ACK's for the 32 bit VDSO time function support. Whats
the next step? Is there a way to apply it to the linux-git or linux-next
in near
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 08:34:58PM +0100, Stefani Seibold wrote:
Hi,
i still wait for ACK's for the 32 bit VDSO time function support. Whats
the next step? Is there a way to apply it to the linux-git or linux-next
in near future?
I thought this was already in the tip tree. Didn't the
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Greg KH gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 08:34:58PM +0100, Stefani Seibold wrote:
Hi,
i still wait for ACK's for the 32 bit VDSO time function support. Whats
the next step? Is there a way to apply it to the linux-git or linux-next
Um. This code doesn't work. I'll send a patch. I can't speak
towards how well it compiles in different configurations.
I can't speak towards how well it compiles in different
configurations. Also, vdso_fallback_gettime needs .cfi annotations, I
think. I could probably dredge the required
On 02/26/2014 12:54 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Greg KH gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 08:34:58PM +0100, Stefani Seibold wrote:
Hi,
i still wait for ACK's for the 32 bit VDSO time function support. Whats
the next step? Is there a
Am Donnerstag, den 20.02.2014, 15:10 -0800 schrieb H. Peter Anvin:
> On 02/19/2014 01:09 AM, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> >
> > This kind of helper must be integrated into glibc, for x86 64 bit and
> > PowerPC it is already there.
> >
>
> Who is doing the glibc work?
>
I don't know. I hoped this
On 02/19/2014 01:09 AM, Stefani Seibold wrote:
>
> This kind of helper must be integrated into glibc, for x86 64 bit and
> PowerPC it is already there.
>
Who is doing the glibc work?
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
On 02/19/2014 01:09 AM, Stefani Seibold wrote:
This kind of helper must be integrated into glibc, for x86 64 bit and
PowerPC it is already there.
Who is doing the glibc work?
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to
Am Donnerstag, den 20.02.2014, 15:10 -0800 schrieb H. Peter Anvin:
On 02/19/2014 01:09 AM, Stefani Seibold wrote:
This kind of helper must be integrated into glibc, for x86 64 bit and
PowerPC it is already there.
Who is doing the glibc work?
I don't know. I hoped this would be
This patch add the functions vdso_gettimeofday(), vdso_clock_gettime()
and vdso_time() to the 32 bit VDSO.
The reason to do this was to get a fast reliable time stamp. Many developers
uses TSC to get a fast time stamp, without knowing the pitfalls. VDSO
time functions a fast and a reliable way,
This patch add the functions vdso_gettimeofday(), vdso_clock_gettime()
and vdso_time() to the 32 bit VDSO.
The reason to do this was to get a fast reliable time stamp. Many developers
uses TSC to get a fast time stamp, without knowing the pitfalls. VDSO
time functions a fast and a reliable way,
28 matches
Mail list logo
