* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > no, the return value after idling can be completely random on some
> > boxes, on a 64-bit scale - triggering the softlockup watchdog randomly.
> > (some boxes return random TSC values, etc.) Again, it's fine for the
> > scheduler's purpose, that's why i named it sched_clock().
> >
> > the proper clocksource use within the kernel is ktime_get() [or
> > ktime_get_ts()]. Do not abuse sched_clock() for such things.
>
> Well, my observation is that both softlockup and the scheduler really
> want to measure unstolen time, so it seemed to me that sched_clock was
> a nice common place to implement that, rather than implementing a
> whole new time interface. At the time that seemed OK, and nobody had
> any objections.
yeah. But then it should not be using sched_clock() but CFS's new
rq_clock() method - which does try to construct a globally valid
timesource out of sched_clock(). [that fix is not backportable though]
Ingo
-
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]
