[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <63386a3d0905250513q6ca56eeepcf7bebe46c447fb4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 14:13:41 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.ml.walleij@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] U300 sched_clock implementation
2009/5/24 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>:
> On Sat, 2009-05-23 at 23:46 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>
>> This overrides the global sched_clock() symbol in the Linux
>> scheduler with a local implementation which takes advantage of
>> the timesource in U300 giving a scheduling resolution of 1us. The
>> solution is the same as found in the OMAP2 core code.
>
> We assume sched_clock() to return time in ns (e-9) resolution.
Yep okay and in this case:
>> + ret = (unsigned long long) u300_get_cycles();
>> + ret = (ret * clocksource_u300_1mhz.mult_orig) >>
>> + clocksource_u300_1mhz.shift;
>> + return ret;
(mult_orig >> shift) == 1000
So for each cycle in cyclecount register we return 1000 * cycles
i.e 1000ns.
If it looks nicer we can of course simply:
return (unsigned long long) u300_get_cycles * 1000;
But the question here is whether this resolution is enough for
sched_clock() or if it is irrelevant to override sched_clock()
if it cannot schedule with better precision than 1000 ns.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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