linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf sched: Introduce timehist command

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 02 Dec 2013 07:28:30 -0700
From:	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, acme@...stprotocols.net,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf sched: Introduce timehist command - v2

On 12/2/13, 12:58 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>             time cpu  task name[tid/pid]    b/n time sch delay  run time
>>    ------------- ---- -------------------- --------- --------- ---------
>>     79371.874569 [11] gcc[31949]               0.014     0.000     1.148
>>     79371.874591 [10] gcc[31951]               0.000     0.000     0.024
>>     79371.874603 [10] migration/10[59]         3.350     0.004     0.011
>>     79371.874604 [11] <idle>                   1.148     0.000     0.035
>>     79371.874723 [05] <idle>                   0.016     0.000     1.383
>>     79371.874746 [05] gcc[31949]               0.153     0.078     0.022
>> ...
>>
>> Times are in msec.usec.
>
> Hmm.. I'm not sure this is right.  It probably confuse users since
> timehist_time_str() still uses "sec.usec" format and it looks not
> natural for me to use "msec".
>
> Yeah, I see perf stat uses "msec.usec" for result of clock events but
> AFAICT it also shows the unit explicitly.  And perf stat -I uses
> "sec.nsec" format and perf script also uses "sec.usec" format so there's
> a little consistency here.
>
> I think this "msec.usec" format fits well for the scheduling events but
> in general "sec.usec" format looks better IMHO.

Arnaldo / Ingo: any thoughts on the units here? sec.usec versus msec.usec?

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/