Re: [PATCH] sched: Support current clocksource handling in fallback sched_clock().

[Paul Mundt]

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 05:22:10PM -0700, john stultz wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 08:44 +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> > What would you recommend instead? We do not want to spin here, and if we
> > are in the middle of changing clocksources and returning jiffies anyways,
> > then this same issue pops up in the current sched_clock() implementation
> > regardless of whether we are testing for lock contention or not.
> > Likewise, even if we were to spin, the same situation exists if the new
> > clocksource does not have the _SCHED_CLOCK bit set and we have to fall
> > back on jiffies anyways, doesn't it?
> > 
> > Put another way, and unless I'm missing something obvious, if we ignore
> > my changes to sched_clock(), how is your concern not applicable to case
> > where we are changing clocksources and using generic sched_clock() as it
> > is today?
> 
> Well, Thomas' point that locking isn't necessary, as sched_clock()
> doesn't have to be correct, is probably right. 
> 
> So, I think a get_sched_clocksource() interface would be ideal (if we
> want to get academic at a later date, the pointer could be atomically
> updated, and we'd keep it valid for some time via an rcu like method).
> 
> Additionally, you can set the jiffies clocksource as a _SCHED_CLOCK
> clocksource and drop the jiffies fallback code completely.
> 
I thought about that initially as well, but in the case of the jiffies
clocksource, that won't handle INITIAL_JIFFIES, which we want to subtract
to make printk times sane.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/