From: dmitry.antipov@linaro.org (Dmitry Antipov)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] sched: generalize CONFIG_IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING for X86 and ARM
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:15:26 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F32918E.9000905@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120208131833.GK889@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
On 02/08/2012 05:18 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/sched_clock.c b/arch/arm/kernel/sched_clock.c
>> index 5416c7c..56d2a9d 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/sched_clock.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/sched_clock.c
>> @@ -162,5 +162,8 @@ void __init sched_clock_postinit(void)
>> if (read_sched_clock == jiffy_sched_clock_read)
>> setup_sched_clock(jiffy_sched_clock_read, 32, HZ);
>>
>> + if (!no_sched_irq_time)
>> + enable_sched_clock_irqtime();
>
> Why are you placing this here? sched_clock is available from the point
> that it's registered, which should be before the first sched_clock()
> call.
This is just because I'm thinking about:
if (read_sched_clock == jiffy_sched_clock_read)
setup_sched_clock(jiffy_sched_clock_read, 32, HZ);
else if (!no_sched_irq_time)
enable_sched_clock_irqtime();
I suppose that "fine granularity task irq time accounting"
makes no sense if sched_clock() granularity is poor.
> This could have been written:
>
> depends on X86 || (ARM&& HAVE_SCHED_CLOCK)
>
> However, ARM will always have HAVE_SCHED_CLOCK after the next merge window,
> so this can become a much simpler:
>
> depends on X86 || ARM
OK.
Dmitry
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dmitry Antipov <dmitry.antipov@linaro.org>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Venki Pallipadi <venki@google.com>,
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: generalize CONFIG_IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING for X86 and ARM
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:15:26 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F32918E.9000905@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120208131833.GK889@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
On 02/08/2012 05:18 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/sched_clock.c b/arch/arm/kernel/sched_clock.c
>> index 5416c7c..56d2a9d 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/sched_clock.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/sched_clock.c
>> @@ -162,5 +162,8 @@ void __init sched_clock_postinit(void)
>> if (read_sched_clock == jiffy_sched_clock_read)
>> setup_sched_clock(jiffy_sched_clock_read, 32, HZ);
>>
>> + if (!no_sched_irq_time)
>> + enable_sched_clock_irqtime();
>
> Why are you placing this here? sched_clock is available from the point
> that it's registered, which should be before the first sched_clock()
> call.
This is just because I'm thinking about:
if (read_sched_clock == jiffy_sched_clock_read)
setup_sched_clock(jiffy_sched_clock_read, 32, HZ);
else if (!no_sched_irq_time)
enable_sched_clock_irqtime();
I suppose that "fine granularity task irq time accounting"
makes no sense if sched_clock() granularity is poor.
> This could have been written:
>
> depends on X86 || (ARM&& HAVE_SCHED_CLOCK)
>
> However, ARM will always have HAVE_SCHED_CLOCK after the next merge window,
> so this can become a much simpler:
>
> depends on X86 || ARM
OK.
Dmitry
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-08 15:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-08 12:48 [PATCH] sched: generalize CONFIG_IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING for X86 and ARM Dmitry Antipov
2012-02-08 12:48 ` Dmitry Antipov
2012-02-08 13:18 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-02-08 13:18 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-02-08 15:15 ` Dmitry Antipov [this message]
2012-02-08 15:15 ` Dmitry Antipov
2012-02-08 15:24 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-02-08 15:24 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-02-09 2:51 ` Yong Zhang
2012-02-09 2:51 ` Yong Zhang
2012-02-09 2:48 ` Yong Zhang
2012-02-09 2:48 ` Yong Zhang
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-02-28 6:29 Dmitry Antipov
2012-02-28 6:29 ` Dmitry Antipov
2012-02-20 6:04 Dmitry Antipov
2012-02-20 6:04 ` Dmitry Antipov
2012-02-27 10:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-02-27 10:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-02-28 6:19 ` Dmitry Antipov
2012-02-28 6:19 ` Dmitry Antipov
2012-02-11 0:02 Dmitry Antipov
2012-02-11 0:02 ` Dmitry Antipov
2012-02-17 11:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-02-17 11:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-02-09 17:25 Dmitry Antipov
2012-02-09 17:25 ` Dmitry Antipov
2012-02-10 22:28 ` Venki Pallipadi
2012-02-10 22:28 ` Venki Pallipadi
2012-02-08 23:58 Dmitry Antipov
2012-02-08 23:58 ` Dmitry Antipov
2012-02-08 16:08 Dmitry Antipov
2012-02-08 16:08 ` Dmitry Antipov
2012-02-08 22:50 ` Venki Pallipadi
2012-02-08 22:50 ` Venki Pallipadi
2012-02-07 18:06 Dmitry Antipov
2012-02-07 18:06 ` Dmitry Antipov
2012-02-07 22:56 ` Venki Pallipadi
2012-02-07 22:56 ` Venki Pallipadi
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=4F32918E.9000905@linaro.org \
--to=dmitry.antipov@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/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.