Re: [PATCHv2 4/6] sched_clock: Add support for >32 bit sched_clock

From: anish singh
Date: Mon Jun 10 2013 - 12:01:29 EST

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Least I can do is to say "Thanks".
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 08:46:36PM +0530, anish singh wrote:
>> Probably a trivial question.I was wondering why this particular requirement
>> exists in the first place.I looked into this commit 112f38a4a3 but couldn't
>> gather the reason.
> You're looking at a commit introducing an implementation. The requirement
> isn't driven by the implementation. It's driven by the code and the maths
> in the core scheduler, and its been a requirement for years.
> sched_clock() needs to be monotonic, and needs to wrap at 64-bit, because
> calculations are done by comparing the difference of two 64-bit values
> returned from this function.

Yes, and this is the question.If it is 32 bit then also it can overflow but
it will happen relatively fast.So I guess that is the reason why we use 64 bit
and this will avoid recalculations for recalibration.
> Let's take a trivial example - if you have a 16 bit counter, and you have
> a value of 0xc000 ns, and next time you read it, it has value 0x0001 ns,
> then what value do you end up with when you calculate the time passed
> using 64-bit maths.
> That's 0x0000000000000001 - 0x000000000000c000. The answer is a very big
> number which is not the correct 16385. This means that things like process
> timeslice counting and scheduler fairness is compromised - I'd expect even

So you mean when counter overflows the scheduler doesn't handle it?
> more so if you're running RT and this is being used to provide guarantees.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at