On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 18:51 +0100, John Stultz wrote: > Very cool work!
Glad that it doesn't sound too ridiculous :-) > I've not been able to review it carefully, but one good > stress test would be to pick a system where the hardware used for > sched_clock is different from the hardware used for timekeeping. Actually I've got exactly this situation on my board. I've got two sources, and actually the worse (narrower and more expensive) one is getting eventually used (because it's registered later - separate patch to follow). > Although, looking again, this looks like it only works on the "generic" > sched_clock (so ARM/ARM64?)... ... and microblaze and xtensa right now, yes. This was just the simplest thing for me to start with, but I appreciate it doesn't cover all possible cases. Thus the debugfs attribute to tell userspace what can it expect from the sched_clock. A hack it is, yes. Pawel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
