From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1756826AbdKNVJq (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:09:46 -0500
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:39123 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753871AbdKNVJj (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:09:39 -0500
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 22:09:34 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@android.com>,
        Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] printk updates for 4.15
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFwNo9CDzuDWue7QJYd_iip4bgEqduVjNAHjxwdxjiur1g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711142208011.2221@nanos>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711131023170.1851@nanos> <CA+55aFwUfA__6MgMgjENnx+_RYY2ZOOLiSx2ea1AvYhSZN+78A@mail.gmail.com> <20171114100336.uil744pxmbsawq63@pathway.suse.cz> <CA+55aFzLH9crdMtUFkD-PtNGuxu_fsG5GH2ACni69ug9iM=09g@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711142044110.2221@nanos> <CA+55aFwNo9CDzuDWue7QJYd_iip4bgEqduVjNAHjxwdxjiur1g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0
X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: -
X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required,  ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > First of all sched_clock() and CLOCK_MONOTONIC can drift apart frequency
> > wise pretty bad.
> 
> Yes. And I would actuall ynot object to just making the printk buffers
> use CLOCK_MONOTONIC.
> 
> The reason we avoided that was we didn't want to take the locks, though.

I know, but today we can use the NMI safe accessor which avoids that.

> sched_clock() is used not because it's the right clock, or
> particularly good, but because it is fast and doesn't have locking
> issues.
> 
> But all of this is entirely separate from the "changing from one clock
> that has small issues for good reasons to FOUR DIFFERENT CLOCKS THAT
> THE USER CHOOSES RANDOMLY".
> 
> See my objection?

I understand that and I certainly was not trying to argue about that.

Thanks,

	tglx