Re: perf_counter: request for three more sample data options

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, 2009-04-03 at 00:25 -0700, Corey Ashford wrote:

> >> I am guessing the only difficult thing here would be obtaining the 
> >> current time from an IRQ, especially NMI handler.  Is this difficult?
> > 
> > Yes, quite :-) I'll have to see what we can do there -- we could do a
> > best effort thing with little to no guarantees I think.
> > 
> 
> Best effort would be fine, I think.  I would assume that means that 
> 99.9% of the time, you'll get a correct timestamp, and the rest are 
> rubbish?  Or would there be a way to detect when you're not able to give 
> a correct timestamp and in that case replace the timestamp field with a 
> special sentinel, like all hex f's?

What I was thinking of was re-using some of the cpu_clock()
infrastructure. That provides us with a jiffy based GTOD sample,
cpu_clock() then uses TSC and a few filters to compute a current
timestamp.

I was thinking about cutting back those filters and thus trusting the
TSC more -- which on x86 can do any random odd thing. So provided the
TSC is not doing funny the results will be ok-ish.

This does mean however, that its not possible to know when its gone bad.

Also, cpu_clock() can only provide monotonicity per-cpu, if a value read
on one cpu is compared to a value read on another cpu, there can be a
drift of at most 1-2 jiffies.

Anyway, I'll prod some at this and see how much of cpu_clock() we can
get working in NMI context -- currently it just bails and returns the
last value computed.

The question to Paul is, does the powerpc sched_clock() call work in NMI
-- or hard irq disable -- context?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/