Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261180AbTGODqn (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:46:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261151AbTGODqn (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:46:43 -0400 Received: from c17870.thoms1.vic.optusnet.com.au ([210.49.248.224]:29916 "EHLO mail.kolivas.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264551AbTGODqb (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:46:31 -0400 From: Con Kolivas To: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] N1int for interactivity Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:03:33 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, efault@gmx.de, felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org References: <200307151355.23586.kernel@kolivas.org> <20030714205915.5a4c8d16.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20030714205915.5a4c8d16.akpm@osdl.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200307151403.33321.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1505 Lines: 44 On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:59, Andrew Morton wrote: > Con Kolivas wrote: > > I've modified Mike Galbraith's nanosleep work for greater resolution to > > help the interactivity estimator work I've done in the O*int patches. > > > > +inline void __scheduler_tick(runqueue_t *rq, task_t *p) > > Two callsites, this guy shouldn't be inlined. > > Should it have static scope? The code as-is generates a third copy... > > > static unsigned long long monotonic_clock_tsc(void) > > { > > unsigned long long last_offset, this_offset, base; > > - > > + unsigned long flags; > > + > > /* atomically read monotonic base & last_offset */ > > - read_lock_irq(&monotonic_lock); > > + read_lock_irqsave(&monotonic_lock, flags); > > last_offset = ((unsigned long long)last_tsc_high<<32)|last_tsc_low; > > base = monotonic_base; > > - read_unlock_irq(&monotonic_lock); > > + read_unlock_irqrestore(&monotonic_lock, flags); > > > > /* Read the Time Stamp Counter */ > > Why do we need to take a global lock here? Can't we use > get_cycles() or something? > > > Have all the other architectures been reviewed to see if they need this > change? I'm calling for help here. This is getting way out of my depth; I've simply applied Mike's patch. Con - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/