From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com>
To: Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Linus Walleij <linus.ml.walleij@gmail.com>,
Andrew Victor <linux@maxim.org.za>,
Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@atmel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
John Stultz <johnstul@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk,
linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: sched_clock() clocksource handling.
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 04:49:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1243943366.6592.434.camel@desktop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090602075409.GA19294@linux-sh.org>
On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 16:54 +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> unsigned long long __attribute__((weak)) sched_clock(void)
> {
> - return (unsigned long long)(jiffies - INITIAL_JIFFIES)
> - * (NSEC_PER_SEC / HZ);
> + unsigned long long time;
> + struct clocksource *clock;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + clock = rcu_dereference(sched_clocksource);
> + time = cyc2ns(clock, clocksource_read(clock));
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> + return time;
> }
My concerns with the locking here still stand. Nothing you've said or
done bolsters the clocksource in modules argument. I think what your
planning for sh clocksources seems very inelegant. I would imagine a
better solution is out there. I'd prefer if you just leave sched_clock
alone.
Daniel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-02 11:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-06-02 7:17 [PATCH] sched: sched_clock() clocksource handling Paul Mundt
2009-06-02 7:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-06-02 7:35 ` Paul Mundt
2009-06-02 7:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-06-02 7:54 ` Paul Mundt
2009-06-02 8:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-06-02 8:00 ` Paul Mundt
2009-06-02 11:49 ` Daniel Walker [this message]
2009-06-02 20:21 ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-06-03 3:36 ` Paul Mundt
2009-06-03 14:58 ` Daniel Walker
2009-06-02 12:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-06-02 20:17 ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-06-03 3:39 ` Paul Mundt
2009-06-02 14:17 ` Rabin Vincent
2009-06-02 14:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-06-02 22:24 ` john stultz
2009-06-03 7:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=1243943366.6592.434.camel@desktop \
--to=dwalker@fifo99.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hskinnemoen@atmel.com \
--cc=johnstul@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=lethal@linux-sh.org \
--cc=linus.ml.walleij@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@maxim.org.za \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--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