[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <33307c790809241356l79acc57cxa4fb84c1e5dae1da@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:56:38 -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
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Martin Bligh wrote:
>>
>> If we use 32 bits instead of 27, then the timestamp events are only
>> about once per second, which is probably fine for overhead ... ?
>
> You'd have them ONCE IN A BLUE MOON.
>
> If there is nothing going on, you don't need the timestamps at all.
Yeah, you're right - we can just mark it dirty, and 'pre-log' the timestamp
events when someone calls a reserve and we haven't logged anything
for more time than we can store. Did not think of that. Was only 5 bits
for us, not an extra 37, but still, is much better.
Is a 5-bit event id generic enough though?
--
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