[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4610A70A.7010105@goop.org>
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 23:47:38 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
virtualization@...ts.osdl.org, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
Dan Hecht <dhecht@...are.com>,
john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 17/17] Add a sched_clock paravirt_op
Andi Kleen wrote:
> I think it would be much cleaner if you didn't implement your own sched_clock,
> but you adjust ns_base/last_tsc to account for your lost cycles.
> This could be done cleanly by adding a new function to sched-clock.c
> Possibly such a function could be used by other parts of the kernel
> in the future too.
>
Cleaner how? This seems pretty straightforward to me. Xen can return a
clock measuring unstolen nanoseconds, which maps directly to the
sched_clock interface, doesn't need any of the existing sched_clock
code. I suppose I could map the Xen interface onto some abstract
"cycles" notion and hook it into the tsc machinery, but it seems like it
would be a forced fit. In general, my approach has been to choose the
higher-level interface over a lower-level one, all other things being equal.
The only reason I hoisted the cycles_2_ns stuff was for vmi. It returns
a tsc-like cycles interface, and so it can make use of the existing
cycles_2_ns code (though I don't think a changing timebase is an issue).
J
-
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