lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [May]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: sched_clock() uses are broken
FromMike Galbraith <>
DateSun, 07 May 2006 19:37:13 +0200
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