[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c384c5ea0808301047g7b3658can77b41e5906d306b6@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:47:06 +0200
From: "Leon Woestenberg" <leon.woestenberg@...il.com>
To: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Joe Korty" <joe.korty@...r.com>, "mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] shrink printk timestamp field
Hello,
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 10:38:08 -0400 Joe Korty <joe.korty@...r.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 07:35:40PM -0400, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> > On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:17:59 -0400 Joe Korty <joe.korty@...r.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Shrink the printk timestamp field.
>>
>> I was looking at it from the point of view of finding out where the
>> boot process was too slow. For that millisecs is enough. I am not
>> sure where knowing printk output to the microsec would be useful for
>> solving anything.
>
> Of course it's useful. If you're working on performance or latency in
> a disk, network or USB driver, microsecond resolution is about right.
>
I second this. If we have timestamps enables, let it be useful for all
current uses. The 3 digits extra are very cheap useful information in
that area (without resorting to more elaborate methods like the
recently merged latency tracer).
Rather than cut 3 digits off, maybe fix some of the too-wide prints
would solve the posters issue better.
Can we please have this patch non-committed or reverted?
Regards,
--
Leon
--
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