On Fri, 5 Jun 2015, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 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.
That said. Can you please send a patch with a proper changelog?
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/
