On Wed, 6 Jan 2016, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > On 01/06/2016 12:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Wed, 6 Jan 2016, John Stultz wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 5:00 AM, Prarit Bhargava <pra...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> -ktime_t ktime_get_with_offset(enum tk_offsets offs) > >>> +ktime_t ktime_get_with_offset(enum tk_offsets offs, int trylock) > >>> { > >>> struct timekeeper *tk = &tk_core.timekeeper; > >>> unsigned int seq; > >>> ktime_t base, *offset = offsets[offs]; > >>> s64 nsecs; > >>> + unsigned long flags = 0; > >>> + > >>> + if (unlikely(!timekeeping_initialized)) > >>> + return ktime_set(0, 0); > >>> > >>> WARN_ON(timekeeping_suspended); > >>> > >>> + if (trylock && !raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&timekeeper_lock, flags)) > >>> + return ktime_set(KTIME_MAX, 0); > >> > >> Wait.. this doesn't make sense. The timekeeper lock is only for reading. > >> > >> What I was suggesting to you off line is to have something that avoids > >> spinning on the seqcounter should if a bug occurs and we IPI all the > >> cpus, that we don't deadlock or block any printk messages. > > > > We could also extend the fast timekeeper with boot/real/tai extensions and > > use > > that for printk. You can use ktime_get_mono_fast_ns() today. > > > > Thanks tglx -- I thought about doing that but was put off by the comments > in __ktime_get_fast_ns() which point out that we could see backwards time > stamps. But I see your point -- I could do the same "last_time_stamp" check > and use "??" in the output.
We talk about single digit nanoseconds here and in the case of a crash/bug we really do not care about that at all. Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/