[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0809251631460.3265@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:33:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>,
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,
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 Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> i do not understand this argument of yours. (really)
>
> 1) is your point that we might lock up?
Have you at all followed the discussion about the people who asked for
cross-CPU ordering? They wanted not timestamps at all, but global atomic
counter updates. Which is very reasonable, if timestamps don't work (and
jiffies certainly doesn't, especially in a NOHZ environment).
IOW, my whole argument is that what tracers want is _not_ the same thing
as what "sched_clock()" wants.
Linus
--
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