From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@it.uu.se>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@google.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
John Stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.6.37-rc3 massive interactivity regression on ARM
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:04:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1291817076.28378.28.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101208125548.GA9777@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 12:55 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 01:40:15PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 16:21 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not sure that's the correct fix - it looks like sched_clock_cpu()
> > > should already be preventing scheduler clock time going backwards.
> > >
> > > Hmm. IOP32x seems to have a 32-bit timer clocked at 200MHz. That means
> > > it wraps once every 21s. However, we have that converted to ns by an
> > > unknown multiplier and shift. It seems that those are chosen to
> > > guarantee that we will cover only 4s without wrapping in the clocksource
> > > conversion. Maybe that's not sufficient?
> > >
> > > Could you try looking into sched_clock_cpu(), sched_clock_local() and
> > > sched_clock() to see whether anything odd stands out?
> >
> > # git grep HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK arch/arm | wc -l
> > 0
>
> Hmm, you're right. In which case it's purely down to sched_clock()
> only being able to cover 4s - which seems to be far too small a gap.
>
> I'm not sure that the unstable sched clock stuff makes much sense to
> be enabled - we don't have an unstable clock, we just don't have the
> required number of bits for the scheduler to work correctly.
We can perhaps make part of the HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK depend on SMP
and only deal with the short wraps (and maybe monotonicity) on UP.
> Nevertheless, this provides a good way to find this kind of wrap bug.
> Even with cnt_32_to_63, we still don't get a 64-bit sched_clock(), so
> this bug will still be there. Even with a 64-bit clock, the bug will
> still be there. It's basically crap code.
You're referring to the clock_task bit from Venki? Yes that needs
fixing.
> Maybe it's better that on ARM, we just don't implement sched_clock()
> at all?
If you have a high res clock source that's cheap to read it would be
better if we can simply fix the infrastructure such that we can make use
of it.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-12-08 14:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-11-27 15:16 [BUG] 2.6.37-rc3 massive interactivity regression on ARM Mikael Pettersson
2010-12-05 12:32 ` Mikael Pettersson
2010-12-05 13:17 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-05 14:19 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-05 16:07 ` Mikael Pettersson
2010-12-05 16:21 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-08 12:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-08 12:55 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-08 14:04 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2010-12-08 14:28 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-08 14:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-08 15:05 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-08 15:43 ` Linus Walleij
2010-12-08 20:42 ` john stultz
2010-12-08 23:31 ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-12-09 12:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-09 17:43 ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-12-09 17:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-09 18:11 ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-12-09 18:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-09 22:21 ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-12-09 23:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-09 23:35 ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-12-10 10:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-10 13:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-10 13:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-10 13:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-10 16:50 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-10 16:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-10 17:18 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-12-10 17:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-10 18:14 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-12-10 18:39 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-12-10 18:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-10 19:51 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-12-10 20:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-10 20:23 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-12-10 20:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-10 20:39 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-12-10 20:49 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-12-10 21:09 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-12-10 21:22 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-12-10 21:45 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-12-10 17:56 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-10 18:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-10 18:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-10 19:17 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-10 19:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-10 19:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-13 14:33 ` Jack Daniel
2010-12-06 21:29 ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
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=1291817076.28378.28.camel@laptop \
--to=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=mikpe@it.uu.se \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=venki@google.com \
/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