On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 02:11:59PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 06/03/13 02:39, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 11:39:41PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +void __init
> >> +setup_sched_clock_64(u64 (*read)(void), int bits, unsigned long rate)
> >> +{
> >> + if (cd.rate > rate)
> >> + return;
> >> +
> >> + BUG_ON(bits <= 32);
> >> + WARN_ON(!irqs_disabled());
> >> + read_sched_clock_64 = read;
> >> + sched_clock_func = sched_clock_64;
> >> + cd.rate = rate;
> >> + cd.mult = NSEC_PER_SEC / rate;
> > Here, you don't check that the (2^bits) * mult results in a wrap of the
> > resulting 64-bit number, which is a _basic_ requirement for sched_clock
> > (hence all the code for <=32bit clocks, otherwise we wouldn't need this
> > complexity in the first place.)
>
> Ok I will use clocks_calc_mult_shift() here.
No, that's not the problem.
If you have a 56-bit clock which ticks at a period of 1ns, then
cd.rate = 1, and your sched_clock() values will be truncated to 56-bits.
The scheduler always _requires_ 64-bits from sched_clock. That's why we
have the complicated code to extend the 32-bits-or-less to a _full_
64-bit value.
Let me make this clearer: sched_clock() return values _must_ without
exception monotonically increment from zero to 2^64-1 and then wrap
back to zero. No other behaviour is acceptable for sched_clock().
--
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/
