Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 07:56:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 07:56:29 -0500 Received: from pc1-cwma1-5-cust42.swa.cable.ntl.com ([80.5.120.42]:12952 "EHLO irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 07:56:28 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: time() glitch on 2.4.18: solved From: Alan Cox To: root@chaos.analogic.com Cc: Willy Tarreau , Jim Paris , Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-10) Date: 06 Nov 2002 13:25:24 +0000 Message-Id: <1036589124.9781.6.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1090 Lines: 22 On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 12:47, Richard B. Johnson wrote: > udelay() would work memory/read/write is entirely different from I/O > port read/write even though PWB traces are shared. But that might > result in wasted CPU cycles. udelay actually makes a lot lot more sense than the current _p stuff. Legacy-free hardware might not do what is expected with port 0x80 eventually and still have stuff using _p > > This works in all cases in machines I have tested. I can't test everything > but, depending upon whether or not the forces a cache-line refill, the > delay can be from 200 ns to over 800 ns. I have a single instance of this, > and call it, rather than doing in-line. This adds a further delay. Thats a call/return stack break. That does delay damage in excess of what you actually want and the wrong places. udelay does the right thing - 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/