[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090403113058.GE31399@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 13:30:58 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: "Metzger, Markus T" <markus.t.metzger@...el.com>
Cc: "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"markus.t.metzger@...il.com" <markus.t.metzger@...il.com>,
"roland@...hat.com" <roland@...hat.com>,
"eranian@...glemail.com" <eranian@...glemail.com>,
"oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>,
"Villacis, Juan" <juan.villacis@...el.com>,
"ak@...ux.jf.intel.com" <ak@...ux.jf.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 01/18] x86, bts: fix race when bts tracer is removed
* Metzger, Markus T <markus.t.metzger@...el.com> wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Metzger, Markus T
> >Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 8:20 AM
> >To: Ingo Molnar
>
>
> >>Also, raw use of jiffies_64 is buggy and racy. Why does this use
> >>jiffies to begin with - why not some finer grained time?
> >
> >What would be a good time to use?
>
> I found cpu_clock() declared in sched.h, which is based on TSC and
> seems to be used by the scheduler, as well. Would this be a good
> time to use?
i'd suggest trace_clock() [which maps to cpu_clock() internally], or
trace_clock_global().
See kernel/trace/trace_clock.c about the properties/tradeoffs. Since
this is a user-facing ABI, trace_clock_global() looks more
compelling, despite its global lock.
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