[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <489286B6.20502@billgatliff.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:44:54 -0500
From: Bill Gatliff <bgat@...lgatliff.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, efault@....de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: Commit 76a2a6ee8a0660a29127f05989ac59ae1ce865fa breaks PXA270
(at least)?
Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> 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?
I've got one foot out the door headed towards a business trip. I can check it
out Monday or Tuesday.
b.g.
--
Bill Gatliff
bgat@...lgatliff.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