[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1364918752.3019.20.camel@hornet>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 17:05:52 +0100
From: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
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>
Subject: Re: [RFC] perf: need to expose sched_clock to correlate user
samples with kernel samples
On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 08:54 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-04-01 at 11:29 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> > I'm still not sold on the CLOCK_PERF posix clock. The semantics are
> > still too hand-wavy and implementation specific.
>
> How about we define the semantics as: match whatever comes out of perf
> (and preferably ftrace by default) stuff?
My thought exactly. Maybe if we defined it as "CLOCK_TRACE" and had
equivalent "trace_clock()" function used by both perf (instead of
perf_clock()) and ftrace the semantics would became clearer? This clock
could be then described as "source of timestamps used by Linux trace
infrastructure, in particular by ftrace and perf".
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