[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CDD18F9.5090005@stericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 11:37:45 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Rabin VINCENT <rabin.vincent@...ricsson.com>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Colin Cross <ccross@...gle.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC: nomadik: expand timesource to 63 bits
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2010, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>
>>> Instead of implementing sched_clock for each architecture seperatly,
>>> wouldn't it be nice to have a generic sched_clock that uses the
>>> architecture's clocksource? I tried to implement that some time ago,
>>> but tglx shoot it down because of locking problems.
>> I was and still am a big fan of this approach, I am willing to help
>> testing it if you want to dust off this patch set...
>
> sched_clock is not necessarily the same as the current clocksource.
IIRC Uwe:s approach was that if and only if you would want to use
the clocksource for sched_clock() you provide a special flag on
the clocksource, and it will be attempted to be used for sched_clock().
Incidentally the dual use of a single free-running timer as both
single clocksource and sched_clock() baseline seem to creep up in
a lot of embedded platforms...
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