From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S936484AbcCQRI0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:08:26 -0400 Received: from arroyo.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.40]:46852 "EHLO arroyo.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932879AbcCQRIX (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:08:23 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] clocksource/arm_global_timer.c: Reduce the rating from 300 to 150 To: Mike Looijmans , , References: <1458198933-3397-1-git-send-email-mike.looijmans@topic.nl> CC: , , , , , , , From: Grygorii Strashko Message-ID: <56EAE42C.3010001@ti.com> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 19:06:52 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1458198933-3397-1-git-send-email-mike.looijmans@topic.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Mike, On 03/17/2016 09:15 AM, Mike Looijmans wrote: > The arm_global_timer clock runs on the CPU clock, and does not correct > for cpufreq scaling. This makes the clock not very suitable as a > clocksource, and basically any clock running on an independent > oscilator is preferable. Few clocksources have a rating over 300, > so this clock usually gets selected as clock source. > > On the Zynq-7000 for example, the TTC clock on the chip is preferred > to the global timer, because the TTC can at least compensate for > cpufreq scaling. That makes the TTC (which rates itself 200) a much > better clock source than the ARM global timer. > > Reduce the rating to 150 to make systems select the ARM global timer > as a last resort instead of a first choice. Yeh. All this clocksource/clockevent/sched_clock selection process is not really clear and not always works in case of muliplatform build :..( For example, I've had opposite case recently :( I have to reduce rating of OMAP gp_timer (300->290), so it will be possible to use ARM GT as clocksource when no-CPUFrq and no-CPUIdle. When I've tried to deal with it, I've been thinking about smth. like this: - explicitly define set and initialization sequence of devices chosen { linux,clocksource = <&clksrc1>, <&clksrc2>.. linux,clockevent = <&clkevt1>, <&clkevt2>.. - or mark devices's nodes timer1: timer@4ae18000 { compatible = "ti,omap5430-timer"; linux,clocksource; linux,clockevent; but I were not able to proceed further due lack of time (^ might cause difficult DT discussion). Would it work for you if it will be possible to simply disable ARM GT when needed [1]? [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg480166.html > > Signed-off-by: Mike Looijmans > --- > drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c b/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c > index 9df0d16..bb410eb 100644 > --- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c > +++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c > @@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ static void gt_resume(struct clocksource *cs) > > static struct clocksource gt_clocksource = { > .name = "arm_global_timer", > - .rating = 300, > + .rating = 150, > .read = gt_clocksource_read, > .mask = CLOCKSOURCE_MASK(64), > .flags = CLOCK_SOURCE_IS_CONTINUOUS, > -- regards, -grygorii