From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:43:28 -0400
> * Paul Mackerras (paulus@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > Mathieu Desnoyers writes:
> >
> > > This patch selects HAVE_GET_CYCLES and makes sure get_cycles_barrier() and
> > > get_cycles_rate() are implemented.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > +static inline cycles_t get_cycles_rate(void)
> > > +{
> > > + return CLOCK_TICK_RATE;
> > > +}
> >
> > CLOCK_TICK_RATE is certainly wrong. You want ppc_tb_freq (declared in
> > asm/time.h). Or tb_ticks_per_sec, since we seem to have two variables
> > for exactly the same thing, for some reason. :)
> >
> > Paul.
>
> Ok, this should work better. Thanks !
>
> Do you know if mtfb implies an instruction synchronization (isync) ? I
> think that if it does not, the new get_cycles_barrier() might have to be
> used at some locations in the kernel code if more precise timestamp
> order is required.
You'll need to make a similar fix on sparc64.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
