[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1304713087.20980.120.camel@work-vm>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 13:18:07 -0700
From: john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC] time: xtime_lock is held too long
On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 19:42 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le vendredi 06 mai 2011 à 18:59 +0200, Andi Kleen a écrit :
>
> > If you have a better way to make it faster please share it.
>
> Ideally we could use RCU :)
>
> Have whatever state hold in one structure (possibly big, it doesnt
> matter) and switch pointer in writer once everything is setup in new
> structure.
Yea. RCU is tough though, because we do need the hardware cycle value
that we use to be valid for the current interval stored in the
timekeeper structure (ie: the cycle value can't be before the current
cycle_last, and it can't be greater then the next cycle_last).
The reason being, that should a frequency correction occur, you might
end up applying the old frequency to a longer interval then desired,
which could cause small timekeeping inconsistencies.
So we really do need a way to ensure that gettimeofday calls fall on one
side or the other of the accumulation loop. We may be able to tighten
that window some, but I don't know if RCU will work.
thanks
-john
--
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