On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 11:25 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 11:19 +0200, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> > You still use struct perf_pair split/hi/lo members in #ifdef __i386__
> > case which you deleted above.
>
> > > shift_count = fls(h);
> > >
> > > - cur.aperf.whole >>= shift_count;
> > > - cur.mperf.whole >>= shift_count;
> > > + cur.aperf >>= shift_count;
> > > + cur.mperf >>= shift_count;
> > > }
> > >
> > > if (((unsigned long)(-1) / 100) < cur.aperf.split.lo) {
> > Same here, possibly still elsewhere.
> > Is this only x86_64 compile tested?
>
> Of course, who still has 32bit only hardware anyway ;-)
>
> Will fix, thanks for spotting that.
Hrmm, on that, does it really make sense to maintain the i386 code path?
How frequently is that code called and what i386 only chips support
aperf/mperf, atom?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
