yeah, will try something like that too.
the thing is, core kernel folks have to resist such pressures
_somewhat_.
Architecture maintainers will put pressure on us from two directions: if
a particular generic feature only helps _another_ architecture, they
find it a nuisance and want it to be gone as much as possible.
If a particular feature helps them, they want it supported and
default-enabled as much as possible. In fact, complaints come if a
generic-looking feature shows up in one architecture only. (recent
example: inlining optimizations ;-)
And you are totally right about sched_clock() being dead on accurate an
globally synchronous on sparc64 - and you are right to find _any_ issue
about it a nuisance. I totally envy you that sparc64's sched_clock() is
so simple - it should have been like that on x86 years ago, if hw
designers werent so impotent about it.
( although please note that the growing generalization that goes on
_did_ find a subtle nohz problem on sparc64 early in the merge window,
so it's not like these changes are totally useless to you. )
but it all goes in the other direction as well: many folks find
endianness problems a nuisance on x86, many folks find TLB and explicit
cache coherence complications a nuisance on x86 as well. The bus-to-phys
complication which is an identity on x86. Etc. etc.
But the core kernel is a conscious and intelligent union of all
architecture's needs, and often we maintain complications even if they
make no sense on the most popular platform. I think it makes strategic
sense because it keep the kernel truly generic and truly clean. It also
keeps architectures honest: even today the x86 architecture is still not
as clean as sparc64 for example.
so please be patient, we are working on it :)
Ingo
--
