[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48D86C38.9000407@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:10:32 -0400
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>,
darren@...art.com, "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
systemtap-ml <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Unified tracing buffer
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> But, with that, with a global atomic counter, and the following trace:
>
> cpu 0: trace_point_a
> cpu 1: trace_point_c
> cpu 0: trace_point_b
> cpu 1: trace_point_d
>
>
> Could the event a really come after event d, even though we already hit
> event b?
yes, if event c is an interrupt event :-).
cpu 0 cpu 1
hit event d
hit event a
log event a
irq event c
log event c
hit event b
log event b
log event d
so, I think if we really need to order events, we have to stop
irq right after hitting an event.
Anyway, in most case, I think it works, but as accurate as
synchronized-TSC if hardware supports it.
Thank you,
--
Masami Hiramatsu
Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc.
Software Solutions Division
e-mail: mhiramat@...hat.com
--
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