[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] printk: Avoid softlockups in console_unlock()
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:14:05 +0530
anish singh <> wrote:

> > If it does need ratelimiting, I'd worry about using jiffies for that.
> > If the kernel is spending a long time with interrupts disabled, jiffies
> > might not be incrementing. Using the CPU timestamp would be better
> > (eg, sched_clock()).
> I am puzzled because of this definition(above link).Sched_clock is
> dependent on jiffies and jiffies is blocked so how sched_clock would
> be better(I am 100% missing something very obvious)?
> Is it that sched_clock is not dependent on jiffies?

yes, I think sched_clock is dependent on jiffies for some architectures.

I was really using sched_clock as a place-filler for "some timer which
keeps running when interrupts are disabled" ;) I'm not really sure what
that would be nowadays - even get_cycles() isn't implemented on some
architectures. I guess some architectures will need a lame fallback or
some sort.

 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-31 23:02    [W:0.074 / U:0.580 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site