Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 Dec 2010 19:17:20 +0000 | From | Russell King - ARM Linux <> | Subject | Re: [BUG] 2.6.37-rc3 massive interactivity regression on ARM |
| |
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 07:10:54PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 17:56 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 02:47:46PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > inline void update_rq_clock(struct rq *rq) > > > { > > > - int cpu = cpu_of(rq); > > > - u64 irq_time; > > > + s64 delta; > > > > > > if (rq->skip_clock_update) > > > return; > > > > > > - rq->clock = sched_clock_cpu(cpu); > > > - irq_time = irq_time_cpu(cpu); > > > - if (rq->clock - irq_time > rq->clock_task) > > > - rq->clock_task = rq->clock - irq_time; > > > + delta = sched_clock_cpu(cpu_of(rq)) - rq->clock; > > > + rq->clock += delta; > > > > Hmm. Can you tell me how this is different to: > > > > new_clock = sched_clock_cpu(cpu_of(rq)); > > delta = new_clock - rq->clock; > > rq->clock = new_clock; > > > > which I think may be simpler in terms of 64-bit math for 32-bit compilers > > to deal with? > > Its not, I could write it like that, the only reason I didn't is because > it uses an extra variable. If gcc on 32bit targets really generates > hideous code for it I'll happily change it.
Well, I can't tell you what kind of code this produces on ARM, as it doesn't appear to apply to any kernel I've tried. So, I assume it's against some scheduler development tree rather than Linus' tree?
| |