From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:16:14 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] configure HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK for SGI_SN systems Message-Id: <1231341374.11687.303.camel@twins> List-Id: References: <57C9024A16AD2D4C97DC78E552063EA35CB95575@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> <20090106201950.GA3850@sgi.com> <57C9024A16AD2D4C97DC78E552063EA35CB955B4@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> <1231275441.11687.110.camel@twins> <20090106225054.GB3850@sgi.com> <1231283763.11687.135.camel@twins> <20090107030030.GH3390@wotan.suse.de> <1231313289.11687.172.camel@twins> <20090107094328.GD3850@sgi.com> <1231322037.11687.178.camel@twins> <20090107133230.GA28694@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20090107133230.GA28694@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Dimitri Sivanich Cc: Robin Holt , Nick Piggin , "Luck, Tony" , "linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org" , Greg KH , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Gregory Haskins , Tony Luck On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 07:32 -0600, Dimitri Sivanich wrote: > Peter, > > On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 10:53:57AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > Clock state is kept per-cpu, and locked with a spinlock. When we request > > Admittedly I have not looked at this possibility too closely, but my > initial concern upon looking at sched_clock_cpu() for the UNSTABLE > case was the lock_double_clock() and what sort of contention that > might cause on larger systems under certain conditions. Similar contention would already exist on rq->lock.