[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1274781095.5882.743.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 11:51:35 +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 11:47 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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().
For completeness, the previously used sched_clock() isn't synced between
cores at all, and can exhibit unbounded drift.
--
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