[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170130143223.GC2669@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:32:24 +0100
From: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] cputime: Convert core use of cputime_t to nsecs
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 05:46:43AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Now lets admit one drawback: s390 and powerpc with
> CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING_NATIVE have new cputime_t to nsecs conversion
> on cputime accounting path. But this should be leveraged by the recent
> changes which delay the cputime accounting to tick and context switch.
I think it would be worth to mention that there are other drawbacks on
32bit architectures that use cputime-jiffies currently, like:
- cache utilization will be worse
- conversion cputime_to_jiffies() and cputime_to_clock_t() (with HZ == USER_HS)
will no longer be an no-op
- to keep values consistent will need to add protection of u64 store/load,
which will create additional performance costs
Stanislaw
Powered by blists - more mailing lists