Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757446AbZAFWvR (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:51:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752312AbZAFWu7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:50:59 -0500 Received: from relay1.sgi.com ([192.48.179.29]:52891 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750924AbZAFWu6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:50:58 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:50:54 -0600 From: Robin Holt To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: "Luck, Tony" , Robin Holt , Dimitri Sivanich , "linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org" , Greg KH , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Gregory Haskins , Nick Piggin , Tony Luck Subject: Re: [PATCH] configure HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK for SGI_SN systems Message-ID: <20090106225054.GB3850@sgi.com> References: <20090106162741.GA7991@sgi.com> <57C9024A16AD2D4C97DC78E552063EA35CB95575@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> <20090106201950.GA3850@sgi.com> <57C9024A16AD2D4C97DC78E552063EA35CB955B4@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> <1231275441.11687.110.camel@twins> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1231275441.11687.110.camel@twins> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1661 Lines: 37 On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 09:57:20PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 12:34 -0800, Luck, Tony wrote: > > > > All ia64 systems are potentially affected ... but perhaps you might > > > > never see the problem on most because the itc clocks are synced as close > > > > as s/w can get them when cpus are brought on line. > > > > > > Do you want Dimitri to resubmit with this set for all IA64 or leave it > > > as is? > > > > I'd like to understand the impact of turning on HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK > > > > It looks like both the i386_defconfig and x86_64_defconfig choose this, > > so at least ia64 will be hitting the well tested code paths > > > > Have the other architectures just not hit this yet? Or do they all have > > "stable" sched_clock() functions? > > > > > > sched_clock() seemed like such a straightforward thing to begin with. A > > quick & easy way to measure a time delta ON THE SAME CPU. I'm not at > > all sure why it has been co-opted for general time measurement. > > It came from the complication of needing to tell a remote cpu's time due > to remote wakeups in the scheduler. But doesn't scheduler tick advance the rq->clock? Why do the others need to fiddle with a remote runqueue's clock? When that cpu starts taking ticks again, it will update it's rq->clock field and start the processes. I guess I am a lot underinformed about the new scheduler design. Robin -- 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/