[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130914011825.GA24859@Krystal>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 21:18:25 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
lttng-dev@...ts.lttng.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Introduce timekeeper latch synchronization
* John Stultz (john.stultz@...aro.org) wrote:
> On 09/13/2013 08:30 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > By the way, if there are some standard test-bench for timekeeping, I'd
> > be very interested to hear about them.
> I've got a git repo of tests that I use for basic sanity checks here:
> https://github.com/johnstultz-work/timetests.git
Thanks for the pointer! It looks like I'm currently breaking
CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW. My thoughts are that struct clocksource read vs
updates are relying on the timekeeper seqlock for synchronization.
Therefore, I might have to apply the latch scheme to struct clocksource
too.
Thoughts ?
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
> thanks
> -john
>
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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