[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1171725598.30834.125.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 16:19:58 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Jeff Muizelaar <jeff@...idigm.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Using sched_clock for mmio-trace
On Sat, 2007-02-17 at 15:56 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > This is one of the reasons why we don't just use good old
> > do_gettimeofday(), since it takes locks and can lead to lock recursion
> > if parts of itself are probed.
>
> do_gettimeofday doesn't take locks.
>
> Only restriction is that you can't single step it with long
> pauses between instructions.
Err, it uses read side of xtime lock, so you can not call it from a
place which write locks xtime lock.
tglx
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists