[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1231275441.11687.110.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:57:20 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc: Robin Holt <holt@....com>, Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>,
"linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] configure HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK for SGI_SN systems
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 12:34 -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > > All ia64 systems are potentially affected ... but perhaps you might
> > > never see the problem on most because the itc clocks are synced as close
> > > as s/w can get them when cpus are brought on line.
> >
> > Do you want Dimitri to resubmit with this set for all IA64 or leave it
> > as is?
>
> I'd like to understand the impact of turning on HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK
>
> It looks like both the i386_defconfig and x86_64_defconfig choose this,
> so at least ia64 will be hitting the well tested code paths
>
> Have the other architectures just not hit this yet? Or do they all have
> "stable" sched_clock() functions?
>
>
> sched_clock() seemed like such a straightforward thing to begin with. A
> quick & easy way to measure a time delta ON THE SAME CPU. I'm not at
> all sure why it has been co-opted for general time measurement.
It came from the complication of needing to tell a remote cpu's time due
to remote wakeups in the scheduler.
--
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