Re: [PATCH] U300 sched_clock implementation

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 11:00:12AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 09:46 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > 2009/5/25 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > > On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 14:13 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > >> 2009/5/24 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > >>
> > >> > On Sat, 2009-05-23 at 23:46 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> This overrides the global sched_clock() symbol in the Linux
> > >> >> scheduler with a local implementation which takes advantage of
> > >> >> the timesource in U300 giving a scheduling resolution of 1us. The
> > >> >> solution is the same as found in the OMAP2 core code.
> > >> >
> > >> > We assume sched_clock() to return time in ns (e-9) resolution.
> > >>
> > >> Yep okay and in this case:
> > >>
> > >> >> +       ret = (unsigned long long) u300_get_cycles();
> > >> >> +       ret = (ret * clocksource_u300_1mhz.mult_orig) >>
> > >> >> +               clocksource_u300_1mhz.shift;
> > >> >> +       return ret;
> > >>
> > >> (mult_orig >> shift) == 1000
> > >
> > > Ah, ok -- missed that little detail ;-)
> > >
> > >> So for each cycle in cyclecount register we return 1000 * cycles
> > >> i.e 1000ns.
> > >>
> > >> If it looks nicer we can of course simply:
> > >> return (unsigned long long) u300_get_cycles * 1000;
> > >>
> > >> But the question here is whether this resolution is enough for
> > >> sched_clock() or if it is irrelevant to override sched_clock()
> > >> if it cannot schedule with better precision than 1000 ns.
> > >
> > > No anything better than jiffies is good, 1us certainly is worth the
> > > trouble.
> > 
> > Can I interpret this as Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ?
> 
> I think its best if we continue with the patch Paul Mundt has been
> proposing.

[added Tim Bird to CC]

So what do we do?  There's apparantly been zero movement on this for
over a month, and Tim Bird is reposting his patch adding __notrace
to ARMs existing sched_clock implementations.

Given that it seems the generic approach has died a death, I suggest we
merge Linus' U300 patch, and get Tim to redo his patch to take account
of that, and apply both.

Then, if the generic approach eventually happens, everything can then be
fixed up.

Alternatively, if there is movement on the generic approach...

Discuss.
--
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/