[lkml]   [2005]   [Aug]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
From: Jason Uhlenkott <>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:33:06 -0700

> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 01:20:52PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> > Not really, when I'm debugging TCP events over gigabit
> > these timestamps are exceptionally handy.
> Yes, but how many of those figures are really significant? I strongly
> suspect that the overhead of printk() is high enough, even when we're
> just spewing to the dmesg buffer and not the console, that we have a
> lot more precision than accuracy at nanosecond resolution.

I turn off VC logging, and I turn off disk sync'ing, so it goes
straight to the page cache.

I really do need sub-microsecond timings when I put a lot of
printk tracing into the stack.

This is a useful feature, please do not labotomize it just because
it's difficult to implement on ia64. Just make a
"printk_get_timestamp_because_ia64_sucks()" interface or something
like that :-)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-08-22 22:45    [W:0.067 / U:1.864 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site