Con Kolivas wrote:
On Friday 24 March 2006 22:03, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Greetings,
/me waves
Ignore timewarps caused by SMP timestamp rounding. Also, don't stamp a
task with a computed timestamp, stamp with the already called clock.
Looks good. Actually now < p->timestamp is not going to only happen on SMP.
Once every I don't know how often the sched_clock seems to return a value
that appears to have been in the past (I believe Peter has instrumented
this).
I haven't bothered to check if it still occurs for quite a long while.
I just check for time deltas being negative and if they are negative I
make them zero and move on. As far as I can remember I only ever saw
this when measuring "delay" (i.e. time on the run queue waiting to get
on to a CPU which can be quite short :-) when the systems not heavily
loaded) as other time intervals that I measure (i.e. time on CPU and
sleep time) are generally long enough for the error in the delta not
being big enough to make the value negative.
Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <[email protected]>
+ __sleep_time = 0ULL;
I don't think the ULL is necessary.
- unsigned long long now;
+ unsigned long long now, comp;
- now = sched_clock();
+ now = comp = sched_clock();
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
if (!local) {
/* Compensate for drifting sched_clock */
runqueue_t *this_rq = this_rq();
- now = (now - this_rq->timestamp_last_tick)
+ comp = (now - this_rq->timestamp_last_tick)
+ rq->timestamp_last_tick;
}
#endif
if (!rt_task(p))
- p->prio = recalc_task_prio(p, now);
+ p->prio = recalc_task_prio(p, comp);
Seems wasteful of a very expensive (on 32bit) unsigned long long on
uniprocessor builds.
Unsigned long long is necessary in order to avoid overflow when dealing
with nano seconds but (if you reorganized the expressions and made the
desired precedence explicit) you could probably use something smaller
for the difference between the two timestamp_lats_tick values. More
importantly, I think that the original code which used the computed
"now" was correct as otherwise the task's timestamp will not have the
correct time for its CPU.
Of course, this all hinges on the differences between the run queues'
timestamp_last_tick fields being a true measure of the time drift
between them. I've never been wholly convinced of that but as long as
any error is much smaller than the drift it's probably worth doing.
Peter
PS I think that some inline functions to handle timestamp adjustment
wouldn't hurt.
PPS I'm not sure that the timstamp adjustment in __migrate_task() is
completely valid as the timestamp will be modified in activate_task()
using the wrong clock. I need to study this more to see if I convince
myself one way or the other.
--
Peter Williams [email protected]
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
-
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]
