lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Patch 1/4] Delay accounting: Initialization
Peter Chubb wrote:
>>>>>>"Andrew" == Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> writes:
>
>
> Andrew> Shailabh Nagar <nagar@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>>> + *ts = sched_clock();
>
>
> Andrew> I'm not sure that it's kosher to use sched_clock() for
> Andrew> fine-grained timestamping like this. Ingo had issues with it
> Andrew> last time this happened?
>
> It wasn't Ingo, it was Andi Kleen... for my Microstate Accounting
> patches, which do very similar things to Shailabh's patchsetm, but
> using /proc and a system call instead (following Solaris's lead)
>

Were these the comments from Andi to which you refer:
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0503.1/1237.html

The objections to microstate overhead seemed to stem from the syscall
overhead, not use of sched_clock() per se.


Andi, Ingo,

Are there problems with using sched_clock()for timestamping if one is prepared
to live with them not necessarily being nanosecond accurate ? I'm trying to search
the archives etc. but if you can respond with any quick comments, that'd be very
helpful.


Thanks,
Shailabh

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-11-16 02:46    [W:0.139 / U:0.528 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site