[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1243943366.6592.434.camel@desktop>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 04:49:26 -0700
From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>
To: Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Walleij <linus.ml.walleij@...il.com>,
Andrew Victor <linux@...im.org.za>,
Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
John Stultz <johnstul@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: sched_clock() clocksource handling.
On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 16:54 +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> unsigned long long __attribute__((weak)) sched_clock(void)
> {
> - return (unsigned long long)(jiffies - INITIAL_JIFFIES)
> - * (NSEC_PER_SEC / HZ);
> + unsigned long long time;
> + struct clocksource *clock;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + clock = rcu_dereference(sched_clocksource);
> + time = cyc2ns(clock, clocksource_read(clock));
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> + return time;
> }
My concerns with the locking here still stand. Nothing you've said or
done bolsters the clocksource in modules argument. I think what your
planning for sh clocksources seems very inelegant. I would imagine a
better solution is out there. I'd prefer if you just leave sched_clock
alone.
Daniel
--
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