Re: [PATCH] N1int for interactivity

[Con Kolivas]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:59, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Con Kolivas <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > I've modified Mike Galbraith's nanosleep work for greater resolution to
> > help the interactivity estimator work I've done in the O*int patches.
> >
> > +inline void __scheduler_tick(runqueue_t *rq, task_t *p)
>
> Two callsites, this guy shouldn't be inlined.
>
> Should it have static scope?  The code as-is generates a third copy...
>
> >  static unsigned long long monotonic_clock_tsc(void)
> >  {
> >  	unsigned long long last_offset, this_offset, base;
> > -
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> > +
> >  	/* atomically read monotonic base & last_offset */
> > -	read_lock_irq(&monotonic_lock);
> > +	read_lock_irqsave(&monotonic_lock, flags);
> >  	last_offset = ((unsigned long long)last_tsc_high<<32)|last_tsc_low;
> >  	base = monotonic_base;
> > -	read_unlock_irq(&monotonic_lock);
> > +	read_unlock_irqrestore(&monotonic_lock, flags);
> >
> >  	/* Read the Time Stamp Counter */
>
> Why do we need to take a global lock here?  Can't we use
> get_cycles() or something?
>
>
> Have all the other architectures been reviewed to see if they need this
> change?

I'm calling for help here. This is getting way out of my depth; I've simply 
applied Mike's patch.

Con