[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101210175645.GB28263@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 17:56:45 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.6.37-rc3 massive interactivity regression on ARM
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 02:47:46PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> inline void update_rq_clock(struct rq *rq)
> {
> - int cpu = cpu_of(rq);
> - u64 irq_time;
> + s64 delta;
>
> if (rq->skip_clock_update)
> return;
>
> - rq->clock = sched_clock_cpu(cpu);
> - irq_time = irq_time_cpu(cpu);
> - if (rq->clock - irq_time > rq->clock_task)
> - rq->clock_task = rq->clock - irq_time;
> + delta = sched_clock_cpu(cpu_of(rq)) - rq->clock;
> + rq->clock += delta;
Hmm. Can you tell me how this is different to:
new_clock = sched_clock_cpu(cpu_of(rq));
delta = new_clock - rq->clock;
rq->clock = new_clock;
which I think may be simpler in terms of 64-bit math for 32-bit compilers
to deal with?
In terms of the wrap-around, I don't see this as any different from the
above, as:
rq->clock += sched_clock_cpu(cpu_of(rq)) - rq_clock;
rq->clock = rq->clock + sched_clock_cpu(cpu_of(rq)) - rq_clock;
rq->clock = sched_clock_cpu(cpu_of(rq));
--
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