| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090803072255.GB27581@elte.hu> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 09:22:55 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Zhaolei <zhaolei@...fujitsu.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add walltime support for ring-buffer * KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote: > It can. but I don't think it is sufficient. On flight recorder > use-case, The tracing run more than one year. And, Administrator > only see last N sec log. (previous logs were overwritten by > ring-buffer go-around) That's definitely something we want to enable ASAP. I'm wondering why a single u64 timestamp is not enough to express the full, absolute range of time elapsed since bootup, in nanoseconds. That would make walltime a matter of pretty-printing only - we'd have to convert the u64 nsec timestamp into a walltime format, right? In fact we could change all the timestamps to be standardized along 'nanoseconds elapsed since 1970' or so - not nanoseconds since the last bootup. That still fits just fine within 64 bits - u64 nanoseconds has a scope of 500+ years. Ingo -- 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