[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:50:50 +1100
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Stefano Brivio <stefano.brivio@...imi.it>,
Robert Love <rml@...h9.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scheduler: fix x86 regression in native_sched_clock
On Saturday 08 December 2007 03:48, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Friday 07 December 2007 22:17, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> wrote:
> > > > ah, printk_clock() still uses sched_clock(), not jiffies. So it's
> > > > not the jiffies counter that goes back and forth, it's sched_clock()
> > > > - so this is a printk timestamps anomaly, not related to jiffies. I
> > > > thought we have fixed this bug in the printk code already:
> > > > sched_clock() is a 'raw' interface that should not be used directly
> > > > - the proper interface is cpu_clock(cpu).
> > >
> > > It's a single CPU box, so sched_clock() jumping would still be
> > > problematic, no?
> >
> > sched_clock() is an internal API - the non-jumping API to be used by
> > printk is cpu_clock().
>
> You know why sched_clock jumps when the TSC frequency changes, right?
Ah, hmm, I don't know why I wrote that :)
I guess your patch is fairly complex but it should work if the plan
is to convert all sched_clock users to use cpu_clock eg like lockdep
as well.
So it looks good to me, thanks for fixing this.
--
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