From: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Ingo, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Oleg, Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend4 2/3] itimers: fix periodic tics precision
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 08:44:55 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090526084455.672c652f@dhcp-lab-109.englab.brq.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090525145132.03915e19@dhcp-lab-109.englab.brq.redhat.com>
On Mon, 25 May 2009 14:51:32 +0200
Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2009 14:32:14 +0200 (CEST)
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 25 May 2009, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > > @@ -904,6 +905,7 @@ void __init time_init(void)
> > > tb_ticks_per_usec = ppc_tb_freq / 1000000;
> > > tb_to_us = mulhwu_scale_factor(ppc_tb_freq, 1000000);
> > > calc_cputime_factors();
> > > + cputime_one = jiffies_to_cputime(1);
> >
> > 1) The variable name is misleading.
>
> What about cputime_one_jiffy ?
>
> > 2) The patch breaks all powerpc platforms which have
> > CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=n and ia64 with
> > CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y
>
> Stupid me, in asm-generic/cputime.h should be
> #define cputime_one jiffies_to_cputime(1)
Hmmm, I'm confused. Perhaps I missed something, but I think patch was ok.
For powerpc and ia64 and CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=n definitions from
asm-generic/cputime.h where used. In this file was:
#define cputime_one (1UL)
and that correct as jiffies_to_cputime(x) is just (x)
For CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUTING=y:
- For powerpc additional variable was declared and computed in
initialization time. Declaration of was in __KERENEL__ scope.
- For ia64: cputime_one was defined as jiffies_to_cputime(1)
Anyway I didn't try to even compile the patch on other architectures than x86.
Of cource I will test my patch, but first I would like to know what You think?
Does we really need such optimization (because before usage of
jiffies_to_cputime(1) was just fine) ?
Cheers
Stanislaw
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-26 6:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20090522154339.06d30f0a@dhcp-lab-109.englab.brq.redhat.com>
[not found] ` <alpine.LFD.2.00.0905221611380.3570@localhost.localdomain>
2009-05-25 11:28 ` [PATCH resend4 2/3] itimers: fix periodic tics precision Stanislaw Gruszka
2009-05-25 12:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-05-25 12:51 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
2009-05-26 6:44 ` Stanislaw Gruszka [this message]
2009-05-26 12:04 ` Thomas Gleixner
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=20090526084455.672c652f@dhcp-lab-109.englab.brq.redhat.com \
--to=sgruszka@redhat.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--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 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).