Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] time : SMP friendly alignment of struct clocksource | From | john stultz <> | Date | Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:38:01 -0700 |
| |
On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 11:04 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 10:58 -0700, john stultz wrote: > > > > /* timekeeping specific data, ignore */ > > > - cycle_t cycle_last, cycle_interval; > > > - u64 xtime_nsec, xtime_interval; > > > + cycle_t cycle_interval; > > > + u64 xtime_interval; > > > + /* > > > + * Second part is written at each timer interrupt > > > + * Keep it in a different cache line to dirty no > > > + * more than one cache line. > > > + */ > > > + cycle_t cycle_last ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp; > > > + u64 xtime_nsec; > > > s64 error; > > What was the motivation for having these (cycle_last for example) in the > clocksource structure. I recall them being added in there at one point, > but I'm not sure why.. Specifically the ones that are updated often.
Roman claimed it produced better code, and the values are functionally clocksource specific (meaning if the clocksource changed, and they were global, you would have to reset them anyway).
I think logically those values are more timekeeping oriented then clocksource oriented, but one could argue that since we manipulate clocksource.mult in the timekeeping's NTP code, mult is timekeeping specific as well.
If you really wanted a clean design, you'd probably have to keep all of those values as a timekeeping_clocksource struct, and then have smaller clocksource structs (name, mult, shift, read) that is filled in by the clocksource driver and copied over on clocksource changes. That way the timekeeping code wouldn't manipulate the clocksource structure directly.
But really, it seems like work for little to no reward (plus opens the issue of "but i want a ntp frequency adjusted sched_clock!" which would not be possible).
-john
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |