On 16/11/15 12:55, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:08:08PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 16/11/15 11:12, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:24:45AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 15/11/15 13:32, Chris Wilson wrote:
+static u64 local_clock_us(unsigned *cpu)
+{
+ u64 t;
+
+ *cpu = get_cpu();
+ t = local_clock() >> 10;
Needs comment I think to explicitly mention the approximation, or
maybe drop the _us suffix?
I did consider _approx_us but thought that was overkill. A comment along
the lines of
/* Approximately convert ns to us - the error is less than the
* truncation!
*/
And the result is not used in subsequent calculations apart from
comparing against an approximate timeout?
Exactly, the timeout is fairly arbitrary and defined in the same units.
That we truncate is a much bigger cause for concern in terms of spinning
accurately for a definite length of time.
Bah sorry that was not supposed to be a question but a suggestion to add
to the comment. Must had mistyped the question mark. :)
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
