[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080917191023.GA23724@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:10:23 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched_clock: fix jiffie fallback clock
* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> David pointed out that the default sched_clock() fallback is broken in
> that it wraps too soon. Fix this by using the 64 bit jiffie value so
> that we're large enough to overflow properly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> CC: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
FYI, -tip testing found bootup hard-lockups today on 32-bit
testsystems.
I've bisected it down to this change. After some head-scratching and an
hour of debugging, it turns out that this aspect:
> @@ -46,10 +46,8 @@ u64 native_sched_clock(void)
> * very important for it to be as fast as the platform
> * can achive it. )
> */
> - if (unlikely(tsc_disabled)) {
> - /* No locking but a rare wrong value is not a big deal: */
> - return (jiffies_64 - INITIAL_JIFFIES) * (1000000000 / HZ);
> - }
> + if (unlikely(tsc_disabled))
> + return (get_jiffies_64() - INITIAL_JIFFIES) * (NSEC_PER_SEC/HZ);
is the buggy one: it calls get_jiffies_64() which does:
seq = read_seqbegin(&xtime_lock);
that's not a very wise thing to do within xtime-locked sections - and we
do call cpu_clock()/sched_clock() in a number of xtime-locked sections.
So i've zapped this commit for the time being, this needs to be solved
differently.
Ingo
--
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