On Wednesday 09 October 2013 07:59 PM, John Stultz wrote: > On 10/02/2013 11:07 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >> On Wednesday 02 October 2013 01:48 PM, Will Deacon wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 06:42:40PM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote: >>>> On 10/02/13 10:27, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >>>>> Really... I have not created patch out of fun. >>>>> Its broken on my keystone machine at least where the sched_clock is >>>>> falling back on jiffy based sched_clock even in presence of arch_timer >>>>> sched_clock. >>>> How is that possible? sched_clock_func is only assigned by >>>> arch/arm/kernel/arch_timer.c when the architected timer is detected and >>>> sched_clock() in kernel/time/sched_clock.c calls that function pointer >>>> unconditionally. The only way I see this happening is if the architected >>>> timer rate is zero. >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> >>> *cough* CNTFRQ *cough* >>> >> :) CNTFRQ as such is fine. I think the below print mis-lead me mostly. >> >> sched_clock: ARM arch timer >56 bits at 6144kHz, resolution 162ns >> sched_clock: 32 bits at 100 Hz, resolution 10000000ns, wraps every >> 4294967286ms >> >> So yes, now the subject patch actually just avoids the jiffy sched_clock() >> registration and nothing else. Even without the patch arch_timer sched_clock >> will be in use. > > Just wanted to follow up here, as I've not been paying close attention. > Is this issue then resolved, or is something still needed to be queued > for 3.12/3.13? > There is no regression as I initially thought. Patch fixes the miss-leading sched_clock print and also prevents timer to handle wrapping which is not needed.
So no big deal and I don't mind if we don't apply it. Regards, Santosh -- 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/