[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <515C393C.8030405@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 08:14:20 -0600
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
CC: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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 4/3/13 8:00 AM, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> What's the advantage of changing apps -- like the JIT compiler -- to emit
>> perf based timestamps versus having perf emit existing timestamps? ie.,
>> monotonic and realtime clocks already have vdso mappings for userspace with
>> well known performance characteristics. Why not have perf convert its
>> perf_clock timestamps into monotonic or realtime when dumping events?
>>
> Can monotonic timestamps be obtained from NMI context in the kernel?
I don't understand the context of the question.
I am not suggesting perf_clock be changed. I am working on correlating
existing perf_clock timestamps to clocks typically used by apps
(REALTIME and time-of-day but also applies to MONOTONIC).
You are wanting the reverse -- have apps emit perf_clock timestamps. I
was just wondering what is the advantage of this approach?
David
--
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