[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080731215703.GA5392@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:57:03 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, efault@....de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Bill Gatliff <bgat@...lgatliff.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Commit 76a2a6ee8a0660a29127f05989ac59ae1ce865fa breaks PXA270 (at least)?
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 11:47:55PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 23:37 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:31:05 +0100
> > > Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > But then some bright spark thought it would be a good idea to get
> > > > rid of printk_clock().
> > >
> > > <does git-log, searches for printk_clock>
> >
> > i think this is a fresh regression via the introduction of
> > kernel/sched_clock.c. We lost the (known) early-init behavior of
> > cpu_clock() in the !UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK case. The fix would be to
> > restore that, not to reintroduce printk_clock().
> >
> > Peter, any ideas?
>
> How about something like this, it builds an atificial delay, exactly
> like we already have for the HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK case.
>
> This keeps cpu_clock() 0 until after sched_clock_init().
>
> Russell, Bill, is this sufficient?
It looks like it should. Bill - can you test the patch in Peter's mail
please?
Thanks.
--
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