Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756406AbZFBUTn (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2009 16:19:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754677AbZFBUSY (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2009 16:18:24 -0400 Received: from www.tglx.de ([62.245.132.106]:36754 "EHLO www.tglx.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755510AbZFBUSX (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2009 16:18:23 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 22:17:23 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Peter Zijlstra cc: Paul Mundt , Ingo Molnar , Daniel Walker , Linus Walleij , Andrew Victor , Haavard Skinnemoen , Andrew Morton , John Stultz , linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: sched_clock() clocksource handling. In-Reply-To: <1243928495.23657.5642.camel@twins> Message-ID: References: <20090602071718.GA17710@linux-sh.org> <1243927502.23657.5619.camel@twins> <20090602073515.GB17710@linux-sh.org> <1243928495.23657.5642.camel@twins> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1649 Lines: 43 On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 16:35 +0900, Paul Mundt wrote: > > > > We already do via select_clocksource(), if we are unregistering the > > current one then a new one with the flag set is selected. Before that, > > the override is likewise given preference, and we fall back on jiffies if > > there is nothing else. I suppose we could try and find the "best" one, > > but I think the override and manual clocksource selection should be fine > > for this. > > Ah, ok. So unregister calls select_clocksource again? That does leave us > a small window with jiffies, but I guess that's ok. > > > Now that you mention it though, the sched_clocksource() assignment within > > select_clocksource() happens underneath the clocksource_lock, but is not > > using rcu_assign_pointer(). > > Right, that would want fixing indeed. > > > If the assignment there needs to use > > rcu_assign_pointer() then presumably all of the unlock paths that do > > select_clocksource() will have to synchronize_rcu()? > > No, you only have to do sync_rcu() when stuff that could have referenced > is going away and you cannot use call_rcu(). > > So when selecting a new clocksource, you don't need synchonization > because stuff doesn't go away (I think :-) Hmm, no. In the unregister case stuff _IS_ going away. That's why you unregister in the first place, right ? Thanks, tglx -- 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/