[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1248343661.27058.1722.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:07:41 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Zhaolei <zhaolei@...fujitsu.com>, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] ftrace: add tracepoint for hrtimer
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 18:01 +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > OK, so what you want to measure is the time of the actual callback
> > happening (hrtimer_entry) vs that where you would have expected it to
> > happen (hrtimer_start + delay), right?
> >
>
> Yes
>
> > So what's wrong with printing the expected expiration time in the
> > hrtimer_start tracepoint in the cheap clock units?
> >
>
> Is "cheap clock units" means jiffies time?
Nah, something like cpu_clock() which is monotonic per-cpu and should
have high resolution where available.
--
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