On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Tim Schmielau wrote:
> Please don't yet forward to Linus. After twisting my little brain a bit
> further, I see that the patch is still wrong if the lowest TVR_BITS of
> INITIAL_JIFFIES happen to be zero while others are not.
OK, this one looks ugly but should be correct, even in the case of a
partial timer cascade on the first timer interrupt:
--- linux-2.5.65/kernel/timer.c.orig Tue Mar 18 13:02:39 2003
+++ linux-2.5.65/kernel/timer.c Tue Mar 18 13:41:53 2003
@@ -1182,11 +1182,23 @@
INIT_LIST_HEAD(base->tv1.vec + j);
base->timer_jiffies = INITIAL_JIFFIES;
- base->tv1.index = INITIAL_JIFFIES & TVR_MASK;
- base->tv2.index = (INITIAL_JIFFIES >> TVR_BITS) & TVN_MASK;
- base->tv3.index = (INITIAL_JIFFIES >> (TVR_BITS+TVN_BITS)) & TVN_MASK;
- base->tv4.index = (INITIAL_JIFFIES >> (TVR_BITS+2*TVN_BITS)) & TVN_MASK;
- base->tv5.index = (INITIAL_JIFFIES >> (TVR_BITS+3*TVN_BITS)) & TVN_MASK;
+ /*
+ * The tv indices are always larger by one compared to the
+ * respective parts of timer_jiffies. If all lower indices are
+ * zero at initialisation, this is achieved by an (otherwise
+ * unneccessary) invocation of the timer cascade on the first
+ * timer interrupt. If not, we need to take it into account
+ * here:
+ */
+ j = (base->tv1.index = INITIAL_JIFFIES & TVR_MASK) !=0;
+ j |= (base->tv2.index = ((INITIAL_JIFFIES >> TVR_BITS) + j)
+ & TVN_MASK) !=0;
+ j |= (base->tv3.index = ((INITIAL_JIFFIES >> (TVR_BITS+TVN_BITS)) + j)
+ & TVN_MASK) !=0;
+ j |= (base->tv4.index = ((INITIAL_JIFFIES >> (TVR_BITS+2*TVN_BITS)) + j)
+ & TVN_MASK) !=0;
+ base->tv5.index = ((INITIAL_JIFFIES >> (TVR_BITS+3*TVN_BITS)) + j)
+ & TVN_MASK;
}
static int __devinit timer_cpu_notify(struct notifier_block *self,
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 23 2003 - 22:00:24 EST