On Thu, 4 Jun 2015, John Stultz wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Jeremiah Mahler <jmmah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So I suspect the problem is the change to clock_was_set_seq in
> timekeeping_update is done prior to mirroring the time state to the
> shadow-timekeeper. Thus the next time we do update_wall_time() the
> updated sequence is overwritten by whats in the shadow copy. The
> attached patch moving the modification up seems to avoid the issue for
> me.
Duh, yes.
> Thomas: Looking at the problematic change, I'm not a big fan of it.
> Caching timekeeping state here in the hrtimer code has been a source
> of bugs in the past, and I'm not sure I see how avoiding copying
> 24bytes is that big of a win. Especially since it adds more state to
> the timekeeper and hrtimer base that we have to read and mange.
It's not about copying 24 bytes. It's about touching 3 cache lines for
nothing. In situations where we run high frequency periodic timers on
clock monotonic and nothing is going on in the other clock domains,
which is a pretty common situation, this is measurable in terms of
cache utilization. I went great length to optimize the cache footprint
and access patterns and that unconditional update really makes a
measurable difference.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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/
