linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@stericsson.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Colin Cross <ccross@google.com>,
	John Stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Rabin Vincent <rabin.vincent@stericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clocksource: document some basic concepts
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 22:13:04 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1289855584.2109.559.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1011151453370.6448@xanadu.home>

On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 15:06 -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 11:33 +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > +The sched_clock() function may wrap only on unsigned long long boundaries,
> > > +i.e. after 64 bits. Since this is a nanosecond value this will mean it wraps
> > > +after circa 585 years. (For most practical systems this means "never".)
> 
> This is not necessarily the case.  Some implementations require a 
> scaling factor too, making the number of remaining bits smaller than 64.  
> See arch/arm/mach-pxa/time.c:sched_clock() for example, which has a 
> maximum range of 208 days.  Of course, in practice we don't really care 
> if sched_clock() wraps each 208 days, unlike for clock-source.

Right, its like sched_clock() would go backwards and we loose some
precision during that jiffy (assuming the arch uses
HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK), nothing too horrible.

> > Currently true, John Stultz was going to look into ammending this by
> > teaching the kernel/sched_clock.c bits about early wraps (and a way for
> > architectures to specify this)
> > 
> > #define SCHED_CLOCK_WRAP_BITS 48
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > #ifdef SCHED_CLOCK_WRAP_BITS
> >   /* handle short wraps */
> > #endif
> 
> Is this worth supporting?  I'd simply use the low 32 bits and extend it 
> to 63 bits using cnt32_to_63(). If the low 32 bits are wrapping too 
> fast, then just shifting them down a few positions first should do the 
> trick.  That certainly would have a much faster result.

Whatever works, dealing with the wrap is only a few shifts.

  reply	other threads:[~2010-11-15 21:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-11-15 10:33 [PATCH] clocksource: document some basic concepts Linus Walleij
2010-11-15 10:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-11-15 10:50   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-11-15 19:48   ` john stultz
2010-11-15 20:06   ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-11-15 21:13     ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2010-11-15 16:34 ` Randy Dunlap
2010-11-15 19:45 ` john stultz

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1289855584.2109.559.camel@laptop \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=ccross@google.com \
    --cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=linus.walleij@stericsson.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=nico@fluxnic.net \
    --cc=rabin.vincent@stericsson.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).