[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <000401c70a80$6eaa61a0$2880030a@amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 11:41:51 -0800
From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@...el.com>
To: "'Ingo Molnar'" <mingo@...e.hu>, "Mike Galbraith" <efault@....de>
Cc: <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: RE: [rfc patch] Re: sched: incorrect argument used in task_hot()
Ingo Molnar wrote on Friday, November 17, 2006 11:21 AM
> * Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
>
> > One way to improve granularity, and eliminate the possibility of
> > p->last_run being > rq->timestamp_tast_tick, and thereby short
> > circuiting the evaluation of cache_hot_time, is to cache the last
> > return of sched_clock() at both tick and sched times, and use that
> > value as our reference instead of the absolute time of the tick. It
> > won't totally eliminate skew, but it moves the reference point closer
> > to the current time on the remote cpu.
> >
> > Looking for a good place to do this, I chose update_cpu_clock().
>
> looks good to me - thus we will update the timestamp not only in the
> timer tick, but also upon every context-switch (when we acquire
> sched_clock() value anyway). Lets try this in -mm?
Certainly gets my vote. For my particular workload environment, there
are enough schedule activity on the remote CPU and in theory it should
make time calculation a lot better than what it is now. I will run a
couple of experiment to verify.
Acked-by: Ken Chen <kenneth.w.chen@...el.com>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists