[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130410100620.GA28402@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:06:20 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Geoff Levand <geoff@...radead.org>,
Gilad Ben Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>,
Hakan Akkan <hakanakkan@...il.com>,
Li Zhong <zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] sched: Update rq clock on nohz CPU before setting
fair group shares
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> I think Mike once tried something along the lines of keeping a per rq state that
> got cleared at the end of schedule() but that doesn't catch things like the
> migrate handlers I think.
We'd need a rq->clock.valid debug flag, which is set by a sched-clock update, and
cleared by the end of all scheduler operations, not just schedule().
Then sched_clock() could have a pretty efficient assert in it. Are there bugs that
such an approach would not catch?
Thaks,
Ingo
--
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