Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932409AbVLISxm (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Dec 2005 13:53:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932408AbVLISxm (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Dec 2005 13:53:42 -0500 Received: from ns.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:51152 "EHLO mx1.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932409AbVLISxl (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Dec 2005 13:53:41 -0500 To: Ross Biro Cc: linux-kerneL@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.14] X86_64 delay resolution References: <8783be660512090834l40b5c051p6c58676bccc834fc@mail.gmail.com> From: Andi Kleen Date: 09 Dec 2005 16:24:26 -0700 In-Reply-To: <8783be660512090834l40b5c051p6c58676bccc834fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 850 Lines: 15 Ross Biro writes: > On x86_64 smp systems, we noticed that the amount of time udelay would > spin for varied from cpu to cpu. In our test case, udelay(10) would > only delay for 9.7us on some cpus while on others it would delay for > the full 10us. We tracked the problem down to an unnecessary attempt > to avoid arithmetic overflow. Here's a fix complete with an overly > verbose comment. I applied it without the comment and without the extra sets of brackets. Please submit future x86-64 patches directly to me and also Signed them off and use toplevel diffs. Thanks, -Andi - 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/