On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 12:01 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 17:35 -0700, john stultz wrote:
> >
> > Peter/Ingo: Can you take a look at the above and let me know if you find
> > it too disagreeable?
>
> +static unsigned long long __cycles_2_ns(unsigned long long cyc)
> +{
> + unsigned long long ns = 0;
> + struct x86_sched_clock_data *data;
> + int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + data = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(cpu_sched_clock_data, cpu));
> +
> + if (unlikely(!data))
> + goto out;
> +
> + ns = ((cyc - data->base_cycles) * data->mult) >> CYC2NS_SCALE_FACTOR;
> + ns += data->accumulated_ns;
> +out:
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + return ns;
> +}
>
> The way I read that we're still not wrapping properly if freq scaling
> 'never' happens.
Right, this doesn't address the mult overflow behavior. As I mentioned
in the patch that the rework allows for solving that in the future using
a (possibly very rare) timer that would accumulate cycles to ns.
This rework just really addresses the multiplication overflow->negative
roll under that currently occurs with the cyc2ns_offset value.
> Because then we're wrapping on accumulated_ns + 2^54.
>
> Something like resetting base, and adding ns to accumulated_ns and
> returning the latter would make more sense.
Although we have to update the base_cycles and accumulated_ns
atomically, so its probably not something to do in the sched_clock path.
thanks
-john
_______________________________________________
stable mailing list
stable@linux.kernel.org
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
