[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131002170917.GB30298@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 18:09:17 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"arm@...nel.org" <arm@...nel.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"rob.herring@...xeda.com" <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched_clock: fix postinit no sched_clock function check
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 05:55:28PM +0100, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> The sched_clock code uses 2 levels of function pointers, sched_clock_func()
> and read_sched_clock() but the no sched_clock check in postinit() just
> checks read_sched_clock().
>
> This leads to kernel falling back to jiffy based sched clock even in
> presence of sched_clock_func() which is not desirable.
>
> Fix the postinit() check to avoid the issue. Probably the issue is hidden
> so far on most of the arm SOCs because of already existing sched_clock
> registrations apart from arch_timer sched_clock. One can reproduce the
> issue by just have arch_timer as sched_clock
Isn't this just an issue with the arch timer driver not calling
setup_sched_clock? Instead, we munge around with sched_clock_func directly,
which doesn't appear to be the way anybody else deals with this.
I'm not sure of the history though, so perhaps there's a reason for this...
Will
--
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