[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18901.52735.579687.568717@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 19:51:11 +1100
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: perf_counter: request for three more sample data options
Peter Zijlstra writes:
> What I was thinking of was re-using some of the cpu_clock()
> infrastructure. That provides us with a jiffy based GTOD sample,
> cpu_clock() then uses TSC and a few filters to compute a current
> timestamp.
>
> I was thinking about cutting back those filters and thus trusting the
> TSC more -- which on x86 can do any random odd thing. So provided the
> TSC is not doing funny the results will be ok-ish.
>
> This does mean however, that its not possible to know when its gone bad.
I would expect that perfmon would be just reading the TSC and
recording that. If you can read the TSC and do some correction then
we're ahead. :)
> The question to Paul is, does the powerpc sched_clock() call work in NMI
> -- or hard irq disable -- context?
Yes - timekeeping is one area where us powerpc guys can be smug. :)
We have a per-core, 64-bit timebase register which counts at a
constant frequency and is synchronized across all cores. So
sched_clock works in any context on powerpc - all it does is read the
timebase and do some simple integer arithmetic on it.
Paul.
--
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