On Wed, 2013-02-06 at 17:19 -0500, George Spelvin wrote: > > I did this first and it's a mess -- the patch basically ends up looking > > like a rewrite. But feel free to use these patches as a base for a > > version you do like and submit those instead for review. I just wanted > > to show the way. > > I wouldn't think so, but I'll give it a try and see myself. Thanks! > > > (Well, actually that was the second version. When I reviewed the > > uart_handle_dcd_change() and saw the separate timestamp, I thought that > > maybe the latency was going to be a problem. So the first version used > > the same approach but with an rcu 'lockless' list instead -- then I went > > back and audited the IRQ path and realized there were 5 bus locks and an > > i/o port read already. So total overkill.) > > Er... but you went and captured the timestamp *before* doing the list > lookup. It was only moved one jsr later.
This was before I moved the dcd_change() call. In the original commit, the timestamp was acquired in uart_handle_dcd_change() and only after wake_up/hangup handling did it call the ldisc dcd_change(). So obviously that was misleading. Also, I wasn't really sure how contended a lock might be. It wasn't until I'd spent some time with the code to realize that answer was "not contended". > Really, what I'd *like* to do is to unconditionally capture a *raw* > timestamp (rdtsc or equivalent) very early in the interrupt handling, > for use by random seeding, pps, network timestamps, and so on. But the > conversion to a "struct timespec" would be deferred until when and if > it was actually needed. > > This is complicated because the conversion has to happen "soon" after > the capture, soon enough that the low-level clock that was read has not > wrapped and become ambiguous. > > But that's a lot more complicated. I understand that's a long-term plan. You should approach the RT crowd about this. I think some might be interested in timestamping interrupts (at least on certain platforms) for test measurement. > >> A more ambitious cleanup would use the existing pps_device list > >> (maintained to allocate minor device numbers) and add an "owner" field > >> that can be looked up on, without creating a new data structure and > >> allocation. > > > Didn't see where that was (unless you mean the IDR allocation). > > Exactly the IDR. You can just do idr_for_each() until you find > the right one. > > > Probably best to keep it separate in the event that relative lifetimes > > change at some point in the future. > > I don't see how that could plausibly happen. Currently, a device > is registered in the IDR immediately after allocation, and is freed > immediately before deallocation. There is no time that it's permitted to > call any kernel PPS API function with a pps_device * that *not* in > the IDR. > > Information with a longer life is segregated in the struct > pps_source_info. (Which is where I was thinging of adding the > parent_dev field.) Ok, so at least someone is thinking about that. > > Please let us know if you plan to respin the patches, so these patches > > don't get pushed. > > I do, in the next few hours. Can you give mt until 0600 UTC, > or should I try for faster? What release are you trying to hit? Regardless, nothing's happening within hours -- days maybe. -- 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/
