Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:48:29 -0500 | From | Shailabh Nagar <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |