[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOAebxumr1WVHxUyrL4XwEO7h2QzH3B_aqKnte0=6zr59YU3MA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 12:24:55 -0500
From: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>
To: Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Steve Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>,
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
linux@...linux.org.uk, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
sboyd@...eaurora.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...hat.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 6/6] x86/tsc: use tsc early
Hi Dou,
> I have tested it based on tip tree. it is OK for me.
Execllent, Thank you very much for spending time testing this project.
>> x86_init.timers.timer_init();
>> tsc_init();
>> + tsc_early_fini();
>
>
> Can we put this into tsc_init(), So we can remove the definitions in
> tsc.h
Sure, done.
>> +static u64 sched_clock_early(void)
>
>
> This function is only called during boot time. Should it
> be a "__init" function too?
While it is guranteed that this function is never going to be called
once system is booted, and we indeed can unload it. I do not think
this is possible, because this function is called from sched_clock(),
which is not part of __init section. Is there a way to do it and not
to have a warning about section missmatch?
I will send out new patches with Dou's comments addressed soon.
Thank you,
Pavel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists