[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160921093255.5b398d6c@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 09:32:55 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>,
Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, rtc-linux@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] time: alarmtimer: Add the trcepoints for alarmtimer
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:36:23 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 09:26:20 +0200 (CEST)
> > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > > A single u64 does not take more storage space than this and it's a single
> > > store.
> >
> > So to use rtc_tm_to_time64()? Is the work to do the calculations of the
> > conversion faster than a bunch of stores that are going to be in hot
> > cache?
>
> Look at the call site. It has already the scalar nsec value and it does a
> conversion to rtc time in order to trace it.
OK. I haven't looked at the callsite. I just did a quick look at the
patch as is, and noticed the wasted space in the buffer for storing a
bunch of ints that will never be bigger than 256.
>
> Ditto for the other tracepoints where the conversion from scalar nsec is
> done in the tracepoint itself.
This is why I like to have the maintainers review the rest.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists