Re: CONFIG_PRINTK_TIME woes
From: Jason Uhlenkott (jasonuhl_at_sgi.com)
Date: 08/22/05
- Previous message: Adrian Bunk: "Re: [2.6 patch] SECURITY must depend on SYSFS"
- In reply to: David S. Miller: "Re: CONFIG_PRINTK_TIME woes"
- Next in thread: David S. Miller: "Re: CONFIG_PRINTK_TIME woes"
- Reply: David S. Miller: "Re: CONFIG_PRINTK_TIME woes"
- Reply: tony.luck_at_intel.com: "Re: CONFIG_PRINTK_TIME woes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:33:06 -0700 To: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 01:20:52PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: tony.luck@intel.com
> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:42:22 -0700
>
> > At the other extreme ... the current use of sched_clock() with
> > potentially nano-second resolution is way over the top.
>
> 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.
-
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/
- Previous message: Adrian Bunk: "Re: [2.6 patch] SECURITY must depend on SYSFS"
- In reply to: David S. Miller: "Re: CONFIG_PRINTK_TIME woes"
- Next in thread: David S. Miller: "Re: CONFIG_PRINTK_TIME woes"
- Reply: David S. Miller: "Re: CONFIG_PRINTK_TIME woes"
- Reply: tony.luck_at_intel.com: "Re: CONFIG_PRINTK_TIME woes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|