Messages in this thread | | | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] N1int for interactivity | Date | Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:03:33 +1000 |
| |
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:59, Andrew Morton wrote: > Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> wrote: > > I've modified Mike Galbraith's nanosleep work for greater resolution to > > help the interactivity estimator work I've done in the O*int patches. > > > > +inline void __scheduler_tick(runqueue_t *rq, task_t *p) > > Two callsites, this guy shouldn't be inlined. > > Should it have static scope? The code as-is generates a third copy... > > > static unsigned long long monotonic_clock_tsc(void) > > { > > unsigned long long last_offset, this_offset, base; > > - > > + unsigned long flags; > > + > > /* atomically read monotonic base & last_offset */ > > - read_lock_irq(&monotonic_lock); > > + read_lock_irqsave(&monotonic_lock, flags); > > last_offset = ((unsigned long long)last_tsc_high<<32)|last_tsc_low; > > base = monotonic_base; > > - read_unlock_irq(&monotonic_lock); > > + read_unlock_irqrestore(&monotonic_lock, flags); > > > > /* Read the Time Stamp Counter */ > > Why do we need to take a global lock here? Can't we use > get_cycles() or something? > > > Have all the other architectures been reviewed to see if they need this > change?
I'm calling for help here. This is getting way out of my depth; I've simply applied Mike's patch.
Con
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |