![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sun, 2006-05-07 at 13:43 +0100, Russell King wrote: > On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 10:33:41PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Mike Galbraith wrote: > > >On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 03:07 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > > >>Other problem is that some people didn't RTFM and have started trying to > > >>use it for precise accounting :( > > > > > > > > >Are you talking about me perchance? I don't really care about precision > > >_that_ much, though I certainly do want to tighten timeslice accounting. > > > > No, sched_clock is fine to be used in CPU scheduling choices, which are > > heuristic anyway (although strictly speaking, even using it for timeslicing > > within a single CPU could cause slight unfairness). > > Except maybe if it rolls over every 178 seconds, which is my original > point. Maybe someone could comment on my initial patch sent 5 days > ago? Simply ignore the wrap... unless you have a scenario where the wrap event itself is significant event. -Mike - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-05-07 17:39 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||