Re: [PATCH] sched_clock: fix postinit no sched_clock function check

[Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>]

On Wednesday 02 October 2013 01:22 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 10/02/13 10:14, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On Wednesday 02 October 2013 01:09 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 05:55:28PM +0100, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>>> The sched_clock code uses 2 levels of function pointers, sched_clock_func()
>>>> and read_sched_clock() but the no sched_clock check in postinit() just
>>>> checks read_sched_clock().
>>>>
>>>> This leads to kernel falling back to jiffy based sched clock even in
>>>> presence of sched_clock_func() which is not desirable.
>>>>
>>>> Fix the postinit() check to avoid the issue. Probably the issue is hidden
>>>> so far on most of the arm SOCs because of already existing sched_clock
>>>> registrations apart from arch_timer sched_clock. One can reproduce the
>>>> issue by just have arch_timer as sched_clock
>>> Isn't this just an issue with the arch timer driver not calling
>>> setup_sched_clock? Instead, we munge around with sched_clock_func directly,
>>> which doesn't appear to be the way anybody else deals with this.
>>>
>> I thought about that option as well but was not sure since even in that case
>> the check is not complete. We just ensure that function is popullated.
> 
> Yes, nothing is actually broken because sched_clock_func() won't try to
> use the jiffy based read_sched_clock() function. I'm not sure we
> actually need this patch besides to remove a useless timer that updates
> the jiffy epoch. Can we wait until my 64-bit sched_clock patch series
> lands in 3.13? It looks like I still need an ack from Will or Catalin on
> the architected timer patch before the clocksource folks pick it up.
> 
Really... I have not created patch out of fun.
Its broken on my keystone machine at least where the sched_clock is
falling back on jiffy based sched_clock even in presence of arch_timer
sched_clock.

Regards,
Santosh