From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH] sched_clock: also call register_current_timer_delay() if possible
Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 17:50:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140502165011.GC20642@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140430165653.GA26716@linutronix.de>
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 05:56:53PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> * Will Deacon | 2014-04-30 14:26:28 [+0100]:
> >I don't think that's the problem I was referring to. What I mean is that a
> >clocksource might overflow at any number of bits, so the delay calculation
> >needs to take this into account when it does:
> >
> > while ((get_cycles() - start) < cycles)
> >
> >because a premature overflow from get_cycles() will cause us to return
> >early. The solution is to mask the result of the subtraction before the
> >comparison to match the width of the clock.
>
> So I got this:
[...]
> Is this what you had in mind? If so, there is one user of
> register_current_timer_delay() which I didn't convert. That is
> arch_timer_delay_timer_register(). It returns arch_counter_get_cntvct()
> which seems to return an u64 (which is truncated to 32bit). However
> arch_counter_register() registers the clocksource with 56bits. So this
> does not look too good, right?
That should be fine, I think there's only an issue if you can overflow
twice during a single delay operation, so the thing would need to be
ticking at quite a frequency for that to happen!
> The other thing I noticed is
> |arch/arm/include/asm/timex.h:typedef unsigned long cycles_t;
>
> This works for clocksource because timekeeping is using
> |include/linux/clocksource.h:typedef u64 cycle_t;
>
> instead.
> Do I assume correct, that the arch_timer is really providing a number
> wider than 32bit? Shouldn't I then promote cycles_t to 64bit if that
> timer is active? Unless you have better suggestions of course :)
The architected timer is guaranteed to be at least 56 bits wide, but I
think we can safely truncate delay sources to 32-bit.
So actually, we only have a problem if people want to register delay clocks
smaller than 32-bit. Maybe it's simpler to enforce at least 32-bit precision
and don't bother with the registration if the clock is smaller than that?
You could use sizeof(cycles_t) to parameterise that.
Will
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-02 16:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-30 12:23 [RFC PATCH] sched_clock: also call register_current_timer_delay() if possible Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2014-04-30 12:48 ` Will Deacon
2014-04-30 13:01 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2014-04-30 13:26 ` Will Deacon
2014-04-30 16:56 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2014-05-02 16:50 ` Will Deacon [this message]
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=20140502165011.GC20642@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).