mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] lockstat: core infrastructure
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:11:03 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1180714263.15884.52.camel@imap.mvista.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1180713154.5676.4.camel@lappy>

On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 17:52 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 08:26 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 15:12 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 19:16 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > I think you are mistaken here; the two are similar but not 
> > > > > identical.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I see sched_clock() as fast first, accurate second. Whereas the 
> > > > > clocksource thing is accurate first, fast second.
> > > > 
> > > > This is true .. However, if there is a speed different it's small.
> > > 
> > > Ugh. Have you ever compared pmtimer (or even hpet) against TSC based 
> > > sched_clock()? What you write is so wrong that it's not even funny. You 
> > > keep repeating this nonsense despite having been told multiple times 
> > > that you are dead wrong.
> > 
> > Yes I have, and your right there is a difference, and a big
> > difference .. Above I was referring only to the TSC clocksource, since
> > that's an apples to apples comparison .. I would never compare the TSC
> > to the acpi_pm, that's no contest ..
> > 
> > The acpi_pm as sched_clock() with hackbench was about %25 slower, the
> > pit was 10x slower approximately. (I did this months ago.)
> 
> The whole issue is that you don't have any control over what clocksource
> you'll end up with. If it so happens that pmtimer gets selected your
> whole box will crawl if its used liberaly, like the patch under
> discussion does.

You can have control over it, which I think the whole point of this
discussion ..

> So, having two interfaces, one fast and one accurate is the right answer
> IMHO.

In the case of lockstat you have two cases fast and functional, and
non-functional .. Right now your patch has no slow and functional state.

The non-functional state is even the majority from my perspective.

> And I agree, that if the arch has a fast clock but doesn't use it for
> sched_clock() that would be a shortcoming of that arch.

As I said before there is no reason why and architectures should be
forced to implement sched_clock() .. Is there some specific reason why
you think it should be mandatory?

Daniel


  reply	other threads:[~2007-06-01 16:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-05-29 12:52 [PATCH 0/5] lock contention tracking -v3 Peter Zijlstra
2007-05-29 12:52 ` [PATCH 1/5] fix raw_spinlock_t vs lockdep Peter Zijlstra
2007-05-29 12:52 ` [PATCH 2/5] lockdep: sanitise CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING Peter Zijlstra
2007-05-29 13:21   ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-05-29 14:16     ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-30  3:14       ` Andrew Morton
2007-05-29 12:52 ` [PATCH 3/5] lockstat: core infrastructure Peter Zijlstra
2007-05-29 20:28   ` Daniel Walker
2007-05-30 13:03     ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-05-30 13:24     ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-30 13:40       ` Steven Rostedt
2007-05-30 13:49         ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-30 17:06           ` Daniel Walker
2007-05-30 17:16             ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-05-30 17:25               ` Daniel Walker
2007-06-01 13:12                 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-06-01 15:26                   ` Daniel Walker
2007-06-01 15:52                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-06-01 16:11                       ` Daniel Walker [this message]
2007-06-01 18:30                         ` Ingo Molnar
2007-06-01 19:25                           ` Matt Mackall
2007-06-01 19:30                           ` Daniel Walker
2007-06-01 18:43                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-06-01 18:51                           ` Ingo Molnar
2007-06-01 19:30                           ` Daniel Walker
2007-06-01 18:19                     ` Ingo Molnar
2007-06-01 19:30                       ` Daniel Walker
2007-06-01 14:25                 ` Andi Kleen
2007-05-30 15:20       ` Daniel Walker
2007-05-30  3:43   ` Andrew Morton
2007-05-29 12:52 ` [PATCH 4/5] lockstat: human readability tweaks Peter Zijlstra
2007-05-29 12:52 ` [PATCH 5/5] lockstat: hook into spinlock_t, rwlock_t, rwsem and mutex Peter Zijlstra

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=1180714263.15884.52.camel@imap.mvista.com \
    --to=dwalker@mvista.com \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=jbaron@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®