[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0809251332360.29802@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:32:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Martin Bligh <mbligh@...igh.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, "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 Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@...dmis.org) wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > The problem with sched_clock is that it gives a 1 HZ timestamp accuracy
> > > for events happening across different CPUs. Within this 1 HZ range, it
> > > uses the TSC and clip when it reaches a max. Good enough for scheduler
> > > or for tracing events on a single CPU, but I think it is not exactly
> > > what we need to reorder events happening across CPUs.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Hmm,
> >
> > sched_clock gives ns accuracy unless the tsc is disabled. And in that
> > case, we don't have any CPU clock :-/
> >
>
> Even on architectures with non-synchronized TSCs ?
Yep, even on those ;-)
-- Steve
--
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