Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sun, 25 Nov 2018 14:25:25 +1100 (AEDT)
From:   Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au>
To:     Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@gmail.com>
cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Kars de Jong <jongk@linux-m68k.org>,
        Philip Blundell <philb@gnu.org>,
        Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Stephen N Chivers <schivers@csc.com.au>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 09/14] m68k: hp300: Remove hp300_gettimeoffset()
In-Reply-To: <36b78174-5038-a1ac-4c70-d84a34edd275@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.21.1811251350500.10@nippy.intranet>
References: <cover.1542589838.git.fthain@telegraphics.com.au> <eb676d37a8e40b88f6c577b372b6512bc19a3394.1542589838.git.fthain@telegraphics.com.au> <CACz-3rh6Qw7YxeFK41KG_ju-bWHRoCaciWvv7JLeURn7wGVAOg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LNX.2.21.1811202034350.258@nippy.intranet>
 <CAMuHMdVQPSE7+Pe64OybnugCx-pLVfKmNS6_4DEofF3XZPBLsA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LNX.2.21.1811211917270.275@nippy.intranet> <CAMuHMdVexpeYVSBMXFwu5cYt3d=w9U48m_fNTuK5awhBNnsW_A@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LNX.2.21.1811212032550.275@nippy.intranet>
 <CAMuHMdVzamshSdhDAnxdzq=YiQMvDhrE03UmJxHJLHr6g=u44Q@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LNX.2.21.1811212129520.275@nippy.intranet> <alpine.LNX.2.21.1811250953120.10@nippy.intranet> <36b78174-5038-a1ac-4c70-d84a34edd275@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 25 Nov 2018, Michael Schmitz wrote:

> > We can benchmark gettimeofday syscalls on elgar but is that hardware 
> > representative of other relevant models?
> 
> I suppose the CIA is on the main board, so running with the slower clock 
> speed that you'd see with a vanilla Amiga without 060 accelerator board. 
> Ought to be representative enough?
> 

Not really. An accelerated CPU clock exaggerates the slowdown factor, 
given the fixed 0.7 MHz CIA clock.

The "(ticks > jiffy_ticks / 2)" conditional won't make anything worse even 
if interrupt latency is already too high, so I'm inclined towards the more 
prudent option. This patch series is already complicated enough.

In anycase, I'd prefer not to speculate about interrupt priorities or 
latencies when the list probably has people who know the answers.

--