Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:09:55 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch] fix the softlockup watchdog to actually work |
| |
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote: > > no, the return value after idling can be completely random on some > > boxes, on a 64-bit scale - triggering the softlockup watchdog randomly. > > (some boxes return random TSC values, etc.) Again, it's fine for the > > scheduler's purpose, that's why i named it sched_clock(). > > > > the proper clocksource use within the kernel is ktime_get() [or > > ktime_get_ts()]. Do not abuse sched_clock() for such things. > > Well, my observation is that both softlockup and the scheduler really > want to measure unstolen time, so it seemed to me that sched_clock was > a nice common place to implement that, rather than implementing a > whole new time interface. At the time that seemed OK, and nobody had > any objections.
yeah. But then it should not be using sched_clock() but CFS's new rq_clock() method - which does try to construct a globally valid timesource out of sched_clock(). [that fix is not backportable though]
Ingo - 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/
| |