[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1228464216.18899.18.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:03:36 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...glemail.com>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Arjan van de Veen <arjan@...radead.org>,
Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] [Announcement] Performance Counters for Linux
On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 18:57 +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra writes:
>
> > So, while most people would not consider two consecutive read() ops to
> > be close or near the same time, due to preemption and such, that is
> > taken away by the fact that the counters are task local time based - so
> > preemption doesn't affect thing. Right?
>
> I'm sorry, I don't follow the argument here. What do you mean by
> "task local time based"?
time only flows when the task is running.
--
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