[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <33307c790809241104k2af4b900w781aba1a1393004b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:04:04 -0700
From: "Martin Bligh" <mbligh@...gle.com>
To: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
"Mathieu Desnoyers" <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
"David Wilder" <dwilder@...ibm.com>, hch@....de,
"Tom Zanussi" <zanussi@...cast.net>,
"Steven Rostedt" <srostedt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] Unified trace buffer
> If we just record the TSC unshifted, in 27 bits, at 4GHz, that gives us
> about 1/30 of a second? So we either shift, use > 27 bits, or record
> at least 30 events a second, none of which I like much ...
If we use 32 bits instead of 27, then the timestamp events are only
about once per second, which is probably fine for overhead ... ?
I think we're OK losing 5 bits of precision, that's only 32 cycles,
given all the CPU reordering stuff we've talked about here,
not-quite-synced TSCs, etc. I suspect you thought we were
shifting by much more than this, in reality it was 5-10 bits,
with timestamp events inbetween, though we put wall time in
them, which I think was a mistake.
(note: I'm not suggesting we have to use this compact a format,
at least by default)
--
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