From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com>
To: Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Linus Walleij <linus.ml.walleij@gmail.com>,
Andrew Victor <linux@maxim.org.za>,
Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@atmel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
John Stultz <johnstul@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk,
linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: sched_clock() clocksource handling.
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 11:49:26 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1243943366.6592.434.camel@desktop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090602075409.GA19294@linux-sh.org>
On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 16:54 +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> unsigned long long __attribute__((weak)) sched_clock(void)
> {
> - return (unsigned long long)(jiffies - INITIAL_JIFFIES)
> - * (NSEC_PER_SEC / HZ);
> + unsigned long long time;
> + struct clocksource *clock;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + clock = rcu_dereference(sched_clocksource);
> + time = cyc2ns(clock, clocksource_read(clock));
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> + return time;
> }
My concerns with the locking here still stand. Nothing you've said or
done bolsters the clocksource in modules argument. I think what your
planning for sh clocksources seems very inelegant. I would imagine a
better solution is out there. I'd prefer if you just leave sched_clock
alone.
Daniel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com>
To: Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Linus Walleij <linus.ml.walleij@gmail.com>,
Andrew Victor <linux@maxim.org.za>,
Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@atmel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
John Stultz <johnstul@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk,
linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: sched_clock() clocksource handling.
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 04:49:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1243943366.6592.434.camel@desktop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090602075409.GA19294@linux-sh.org>
On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 16:54 +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> unsigned long long __attribute__((weak)) sched_clock(void)
> {
> - return (unsigned long long)(jiffies - INITIAL_JIFFIES)
> - * (NSEC_PER_SEC / HZ);
> + unsigned long long time;
> + struct clocksource *clock;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + clock = rcu_dereference(sched_clocksource);
> + time = cyc2ns(clock, clocksource_read(clock));
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> + return time;
> }
My concerns with the locking here still stand. Nothing you've said or
done bolsters the clocksource in modules argument. I think what your
planning for sh clocksources seems very inelegant. I would imagine a
better solution is out there. I'd prefer if you just leave sched_clock
alone.
Daniel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-02 11:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-06-02 7:17 [PATCH] sched: sched_clock() clocksource handling Paul Mundt
2009-06-02 7:17 ` Paul Mundt
2009-06-02 7:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-06-02 7:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-06-02 7:35 ` Paul Mundt
2009-06-02 7:35 ` Paul Mundt
2009-06-02 7:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-06-02 7:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-06-02 7:54 ` Paul Mundt
2009-06-02 7:54 ` Paul Mundt
2009-06-02 8:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-06-02 8:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-06-02 8:00 ` Paul Mundt
2009-06-02 8:00 ` Paul Mundt
2009-06-02 11:49 ` Daniel Walker [this message]
2009-06-02 11:49 ` Daniel Walker
2009-06-02 20:21 ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-06-02 20:21 ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-06-03 3:36 ` Paul Mundt
2009-06-03 3:36 ` Paul Mundt
2009-06-03 14:58 ` Daniel Walker
2009-06-03 14:58 ` Daniel Walker
2009-06-02 12:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-06-02 12:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-06-02 20:17 ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-06-02 20:17 ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-06-03 3:39 ` Paul Mundt
2009-06-03 3:39 ` Paul Mundt
2009-06-02 14:17 ` Rabin Vincent
2009-06-02 14:29 ` Rabin Vincent
2009-06-02 14:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-06-02 14:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-06-02 22:24 ` john stultz
2009-06-02 22:24 ` john stultz
2009-06-03 7:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-06-03 7:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1243943366.6592.434.camel@desktop \
--to=dwalker@fifo99.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hskinnemoen@atmel.com \
--cc=johnstul@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=lethal@linux-sh.org \
--cc=linus.ml.walleij@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@maxim.org.za \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.