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
next prev parent 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®