From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: john stultz Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 20:40:39 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Support current clocksource handling in Message-Id: <1243370439.3275.13.camel@localhost> List-Id: References: <20090526061532.GD9188@linux-sh.org> <63386a3d0905260731m655bfee3q82a6f52d71fa3cef@mail.gmail.com> <1243348681.23657.14.camel@twins> <1243369423.3275.5.camel@localhost> <1243369815.6600.2.camel@laptop> In-Reply-To: <1243369815.6600.2.camel@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Linus Walleij , Paul Mundt , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Victor , Haavard Skinnemoen , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, John Stultz , Thomas Gleixner On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 22:30 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 13:23 -0700, john stultz wrote: > > Overall, I'd probably suggest thinking this through a bit more. At some > > point doing this right will cause sched_clock() to be basically the same > > as ktime_get(). So why not just use that instead of remaking it? > > simply because we don't require the strict global monotonicy for > scheduling as we do from a regular time source (its nice to have > though). > > That means that on x86 we can always use TSC for sched_clock(), even > when its quite unsuitable for ktime. Right, but I guess what I'm asking is can this be a bit better defined? If we are going to use clocksources (or cyclecounters - an area I need to clean up soon), it would be good to get an idea of what is expected of the sched_clock() interface. So TSC good, HPET bad. Why? Is latency all we care about? How bad would the TSC have to be before we wouldn't want to use it? thanks -john