From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756930AbYAYR1s (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:27:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753546AbYAYR1k (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:27:40 -0500 Received: from ik-out-1112.google.com ([66.249.90.183]:22437 "EHLO ik-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753446AbYAYR1j (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:27:39 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=Uf86KdOS2I7PFvCwYTB7MIV3DHILlp/Smc5dFBVcl1HZ3uVf8RoZ/AQ1wCT18iSLG85MWaZsFSMg8r3WvVo3Zp22FBzDnTrz+F5krJ/xTNVjYy1wUVItqkRn3DGLumEnN2/5saO9hpS/uFnj6UyWvJGu7MgKrX8TYICugQhW6U4= Message-ID: <3d8471ca0801250927r67d0a27es77f4176f89e7d8f7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:27:37 +0100 From: "Guillaume Chazarain" To: "Ingo Molnar" Subject: Re: Dropping some patches from sched-devel Cc: LKML In-Reply-To: <20080125165837.GA19377@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3d8471ca0801250838h2d1f21f2n95c70bc26e28d310@mail.gmail.com> <20080125165837.GA19377@elte.hu> X-Google-Sender-Auth: ca25212462aa0491 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Jan 25, 2008 5:58 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > sure, done. Thanks. > what method are you using of determining quality? I was talking about code quality: adding a dependency on jiffies does not seems like a good idea. But also, about the clock quality, I was focusing on getting rid of underflows and overflows so relaxed the checks. But I realized all these underflows are definitely needed. I mean, the conversion from TSC to sched_clock always rounds to lower, so overtime it lags a bit. > Could you perhaps try > to automate it? (even better would be some self-test within the kernel > that detects badness) I find the overflow/underflow/warps checks you added in the first place to be sufficent. Not sure we want to add more tests to differentiate between normal and abnormal drifts. Thanks for your prompt reply. -- Guillaume