[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070801161159.GA19776@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 18:11:59 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CFS review
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 04:36:24PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
>
> > > jiffies based sched_clock should be soon very rare. It's probably
> > > not worth optimizing for it.
> >
> > I'm not so sure about that. sched_clock() has to be fast, so many
> > archs may want to continue to use jiffies. [...]
>
> i think Andi was talking about the vast majority of the systems out
> there. For example, check out the arch demography of current Fedora
> installs (according to the Smolt opt-in UUID based user metrics):
I meant that in many cases where the TSC is considered unreliable
today it'll be possible to use it anyways at least for sched_clock()
(and possibly even gtod())
The exception would be system which really have none, but there
should be very few of those.
-Andi
-
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