From: Linus Walleij <linus.ml.walleij@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] U300 sched_clock implementation
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 14:13:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <63386a3d0905250513q6ca56eeepcf7bebe46c447fb4@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1243151839.26820.642.camel@twins>
2009/5/24 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>:
> On Sat, 2009-05-23 at 23:46 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>
>> This overrides the global sched_clock() symbol in the Linux
>> scheduler with a local implementation which takes advantage of
>> the timesource in U300 giving a scheduling resolution of 1us. The
>> solution is the same as found in the OMAP2 core code.
>
> We assume sched_clock() to return time in ns (e-9) resolution.
Yep okay and in this case:
>> + ret = (unsigned long long) u300_get_cycles();
>> + ret = (ret * clocksource_u300_1mhz.mult_orig) >>
>> + clocksource_u300_1mhz.shift;
>> + return ret;
(mult_orig >> shift) == 1000
So for each cycle in cyclecount register we return 1000 * cycles
i.e 1000ns.
If it looks nicer we can of course simply:
return (unsigned long long) u300_get_cycles * 1000;
But the question here is whether this resolution is enough for
sched_clock() or if it is irrelevant to override sched_clock()
if it cannot schedule with better precision than 1000 ns.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-25 12:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <63386a3d0905112337p2d426481o5f9bf9b9489cc57e@mail.gmail.com>
2009-05-23 21:46 ` [PATCH] U300 sched_clock implementation Linus Walleij
2009-05-24 7:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-25 12:13 ` Linus Walleij [this message]
2009-05-25 13:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-25 13:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-06-01 7:46 ` Linus Walleij
2009-06-02 9:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-07-07 7:42 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2009-07-07 8:01 ` Linus Walleij
2009-07-08 9:35 ` Paul Mundt
2009-08-13 11:49 Linus Walleij
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=63386a3d0905250513q6ca56eeepcf7bebe46c447fb4@mail.gmail.com \
--to=linus.ml.walleij@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/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