[PATCH v2 0/3] arm_arch_timer: VDSO preparation, code consolidation

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 03:45:41PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:30:23PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

quoted

I raised a while back with Will whether there's much point to having
this on ARM.  While it's useful for virtualisation, the majority of
32-bit ARM doesn't run virtualised.

This has nothing to do with virtualisation. The main reason we use
CNTVCT is to not require kernel binary differences when running the OS
as host or guest. But it does _not_ mean that it is only used when
running as a guest.

quoted

So there's little point in having the VDSO on the majority of
platforms - it will just add additional unnecessary cycles slowing
down the system calls that the VDSO is designed to try to speed up.

A good reason for VDSO is to avoid a system call for gettimeofday when
you can read the clocks source from user space. That's a significant
improvement on CPUs like A7, A15.

I'm *not* arguing against having a VDSO to speed up that crap.  What
I'm trying to get to the bottom of - something which has been totally
lost sight of - is what the friggin effect of this stuff is on CPUs
*without* the architected timer.

Until I get an answer to what the measured effect is, I'm saying no to
VDSO on ARM, because - as seems to be the norm - the evaluation job is
only half done.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.