Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755833AbWKQTly (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:41:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755835AbWKQTly (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:41:54 -0500 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:26633 "EHLO mga09.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755834AbWKQTlx (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:41:53 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,435,1157353200"; d="scan'208"; a="163210958:sNHT20346207" From: "Chen, Kenneth W" To: "'Ingo Molnar'" , "Mike Galbraith" Cc: , "Siddha, Suresh B" , , "Andrew Morton" Subject: RE: [rfc patch] Re: sched: incorrect argument used in task_hot() Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 11:41:51 -0800 Message-ID: <000401c70a80$6eaa61a0$2880030a@amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AccKfjk9SR1RaxbuQlizu1cJKCob0gAAZD0A In-Reply-To: <20061117192052.GA23272@elte.hu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1380 Lines: 29 Ingo Molnar wrote on Friday, November 17, 2006 11:21 AM > * Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > One way to improve granularity, and eliminate the possibility of > > p->last_run being > rq->timestamp_tast_tick, and thereby short > > circuiting the evaluation of cache_hot_time, is to cache the last > > return of sched_clock() at both tick and sched times, and use that > > value as our reference instead of the absolute time of the tick. It > > won't totally eliminate skew, but it moves the reference point closer > > to the current time on the remote cpu. > > > > Looking for a good place to do this, I chose update_cpu_clock(). > > looks good to me - thus we will update the timestamp not only in the > timer tick, but also upon every context-switch (when we acquire > sched_clock() value anyway). Lets try this in -mm? Certainly gets my vote. For my particular workload environment, there are enough schedule activity on the remote CPU and in theory it should make time calculation a lot better than what it is now. I will run a couple of experiment to verify. Acked-by: Ken Chen - 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/