[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140430132628.GC15719@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:26:28 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Theodore Ts o <tytso@....edu>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched_clock: also call
register_current_timer_delay() if possible
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 02:01:32PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 04/30/2014 02:48 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Hi Sebastian,
>
> Hi Will,
>
> > As long as sched_clock is guaranteed to be a fixed frequency, always-on
> > clocksource then this could work, but it removes the flexibility of having
> > a separate delay clock and sched clock (is this useful?).
>
>
>
> > Looking at your patch, I noticed that we need to extend the
> > register_current_timer_delay function to deal with clocks that aren't as
> > wide as cycle_t, otherwise we don't delay() for long enough when the clock
> > overflows (this is potentially already an issue for architected timers <
> > 64-bit). Could you cook a patch for that please?
>
> Sure, I would change the type from long to u64 and fix all users. Would
> that be okay for you?
I don't think that's the problem I was referring to. What I mean is that a
clocksource might overflow at any number of bits, so the delay calculation
needs to take this into account when it does:
while ((get_cycles() - start) < cycles)
because a premature overflow from get_cycles() will cause us to return
early. The solution is to mask the result of the subtraction before the
comparison to match the width of the clock.
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