> > base = monotonic_base;
> > - read_unlock_irq(&monotonic_lock);
> > + read_unlock_irqrestore(&monotonic_lock, flags);
> >
> > /* Read the Time Stamp Counter */
>
> Why do we need to take a global lock here? Can't we use
> get_cycles() or something?
I think that'll break even on some x86 boxes if we used get_cycles. I do
wonder however why we need that lock, i see x86/64 uses seqlock at least.
Although i can't vouch for whether that would have an adverse affect here.
I presume Stultz would know.
> Have all the other architectures been reviewed to see if they need this
> change?
No one else appears to have monotonic_clock, this would break every other
arch out there.
-- function.linuxpower.ca - 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/