[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1360174662.4045.34.camel@hornet>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 18:17:42 +0000
From: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
tglx <tglx@...utronix.de>, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] perf: need to expose sched_clock to correlate user
samples with kernel samples
On Tue, 2013-02-05 at 22:13 +0000, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> The app requesting the timestamp may not necessarily have an active
> perf session. And by that I mean, it may not be self-monitoring. But it
> could be monitored by an external tool such as perf, without necessary
> knowing it.
Fair enough - I guess eg. JIT engine could generate a timestamped
information about generated symbols which could be then merged with a
stream recorded by the perf tool by yet another tool.
> The timestamp is global or at least per-cpu. It is not tied to a particular
> active event.
I know that the implementation does it now, but is it actually specified
as such? I could imagine a situation where perf_clock() returns time
elapsed since the "current" sys_perf_event_open()... (not that I'd like
it ;-)
Paweł
--
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