[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080726132118.GA30903@elte.hu>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:21:18 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ftrace: single CPU tracers use CPU clock
* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > this is not a good idea. We want to fix cpu_clock(), not work around
> > any deficiencies it might have.
>
> cpu_clock currently is "sched_clock" when the
> CONFIG_HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK is not set. Which is done via
> configuration, and I noticed is set on my boxes with a stable TSC??
define 'stable TSC' ;-)
> Perhaps we need to make cpu_clock change dynamically when an unstable
> sched_clock is detected.
>
> Even in this case, forcing the tracers that are single CPU to use a
> clock source that modifies itself to try to look stable across CPUs
> still seems wrong to me. The goal of looking stable across CPUs will
> always be at odds with the irqsoff tracer that does not care about
> other CPUS but cares tremendously about accurate latencies.
other tracers care too - for example to have the right chronology of
trace events. The scheduler cares too. What kind of worst-case cross-CPU
effects have you observed?
Ingo
--
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