Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:50:09 +0200 | From | Martin Schwidefsky <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][patch 00/12] clocksource / timekeeping rework V2 |
| |
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 09:10:31 -0600 dwalker@fifo99.com wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 15:41 +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > > There is still more room for improvement. Some sore points are: > > > > 1) The cycle_last value still is in the struct clocksource. It should > > be in the struct timekeeper but the check against cycles_last in > > the > > read function of the TSC clock source makes it hard. > > 2) read_persistent_clock returns seconds. With a really good initial > > time source this is not very precise. read_persistent_clock should > > return a struct timespec. > > 3) xtime, raw_time, total_sleep_time, timekeeping_suspended, jiffies, > > the ntp state and probably a few other values may be better located > > in the struct timekeeper as well. > > > You could also consolidate the clocksource_unregister() path and the > clocksource_change_rating(0) path , both are basically doing the same > thing.. Neither one is heavily used..
I'm not quite sure I got this. If I look at the code:
/** * clocksource_change_rating - Change the rating of a registered clocksource */ void clocksource_change_rating(struct clocksource *cs, int rating) { mutex_lock(&clocksource_mutex); cs->rating = rating; clocksource_select(); mutex_unlock(&clocksource_mutex); } EXPORT_SYMBOL(clocksource_change_rating);
/** * clocksource_unregister - remove a registered clocksource */ void clocksource_unregister(struct clocksource *cs) { mutex_lock(&clocksource_mutex); clocksource_dequeue_watchdog(cs); list_del(&cs->list); clocksource_select(); mutex_unlock(&clocksource_mutex); } EXPORT_SYMBOL(clocksource_unregister);
the two functions do different things. What exactly is the idea you've got in mind?
-- blue skies, Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
| |