[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1274780834.5882.730.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 11:47:14 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: piotr@...owicz.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Divyesh Shah <dpshah@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code:
icedove-bin/5449
On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 11:43 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Subject: sched_clock: Add local_clock()
> > From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> > Date: Tue May 25 10:48:51 CEST 2010
> >
> > For people who otherwise get to write: cpu_clock(smp_processor_id()),
> > there is now: local_clock().
>
> This doesnt fix the whole issue. cpu_clock() is local, while the measurements
> done in the blk code are global ...
>
> While the warning is fixed this way, the far more serious issue is still
> there: time can go backwards if two points of time measurement are on
> different CPUs and can mess up the statistics with negative values, etc...
cpu_clock() is synced on each tick, so the inter-cpu-drift should not
exceed 2 jiffies.
But yeah, if they want anything better, they'll have to start caring on
what cpu which timestamp got taken and use cpu_clock().
--
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