On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 11:46 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Daniel Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Uses the block notifier to replace the functionality of
> > update_callback(). update_callback() was a special case specifically
> > for the tsc, but including it in the clocksource structure duplicated
> > it needlessly for other clocks.
>
> Firstly, it think it should be mentioned that Thomas' queue already does
> this, in clocksource-remove-the-update-callback.patch (hence he should
> have been Cc:-ed). Your queue 'drops' Thomas' patch then redoes it here
> without mentioning that this is another version of what is in Thomas's
> queue. So we get this situation:
>
> clocksource-remove-the-update-callback.patch
> drop-clocksource-remove-the-update-callback.patch
> clocksource_remove_update_callback.patch
>
> that all flip-flops the same thing.
To be clear this change has exists for a very long time, long before
Thomas implemented it ..
> Secondly, your patch seems to do other changes as well:
>
> > @@ -179,6 +172,7 @@ int recalibrate_cpu_khz(void)
> > if (cpu_has_tsc) {
> > cpu_khz = calculate_cpu_khz();
> > tsc_khz = cpu_khz;
> > + mark_tsc_unstable();
> > cpu_data[0].loops_per_jiffy =
> > cpufreq_scale(cpu_data[0].loops_per_jiffy,
> > cpu_khz_old, cpu_khz);
>
> this adds a new event to a place that didnt have it before. (If this is
> fixing up an initialization artifact then that needs a comment at
> least.)
Alright .. Later on I talk about clock frequency recalculation which
pertains to this change ..
> plus:
>
> > struct clocksource *clock = &clocksource_jiffies;
> > +atomic_t clock_recalc_interval = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
>
> is not mentioned in the changelog. It's also needlessly global.
> Furthermore, it seems to be a rather unclean method of passing
> information from clocksource_callback() into change_clocksource():
It's a bisect artifact .. It's eventually dropped in a latter patch .
> > @@ -176,8 +177,9 @@ static int change_clocksource(void)
> > printk(KERN_INFO "Time: %s clocksource has been installed.\n",
> > clock->name);
> > return 1;
> > - } else if (clock->update_callback) {
> > - return clock->update_callback();
> > + } else if (unlikely(atomic_read(&clock_recalc_interval))) {
> > + atomic_set(&clock_recalc_interval, 0);
> > + return 1;
>
> that's quite bad: you lost an information passing facility by going to a
> notifier, and you try to work it around via a global atomic variable.
> Which also looks quite racy as well.
>
> The clean solution is i think what Thomas did: he calls straight into
> clocksource_change_rating(). And look at Thomas' patch:
The information passing was purposefully dropped .. It was used (in
part) to recalculate the frequency of a clock , but after discussing it
with John he suggested we drop the frequency recalculation entirely. So
the information passing should no longer be needed.
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
