Vincent, On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> In summary, we've got the following MCT patches proposed to go upstream: >> >> 1. MCT scheduler clock: <http://crosreview.com/56363> and >> <http://crosreview.com/56364> >> 2. Speed MCT access: <http://crosreview.com/56365>. I wonder if we >> could also speed it up further with a 64-bit read. >> 3. Use MCT for udelay: yet to be written. >> >> ...does someone want to claim the task of sending those things up? >> >> >> Oh, actually it looks like (93bfb76 clocksource: exynos_mct: register >> sched_clock callback) in linuxnext adds a partial version of the first >> patch but isn't as complete as what's in our tree (it's missing the >> KConfig change we have locally as well as the notrace so it probably >> breaks ftrace?). Adding Vincent. > > Hi Doug, > > Thanks for adding me in the loop. > > The only difference i see are: > -HAVE_SCHED_CLOCK which is no more needed > -and the use of 32bit vs 64bit in the for-next > -notrace is present in the for-next AFAICT Ah, my bad! Yes, you're right that things look OK. I looked too quickly and didn't see the notrace. ...and I wasn't aware that HAVE_SCHED_CLOCK was no longer needed. One thing that might be interesting is to consider using 32-bit instead of 64-bit. We know that this clock is slow to access, so reducing 3 reads down to 1 would be worth it. A 32-bit clock should be sufficient for the scheduler anyway. -Doug -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |