mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: tony.luck@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jasonuhl@sgi.com
Subject: Re: CONFIG_PRINTK_TIME woes
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:01:27 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050821110127.3b601268.akpm@osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4308649D.7060008@yahoo.com.au>

Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> > 
> > yup.
> > 
> > 
> >>Why not use something like do_gettimeofday? (or I'm sure one
> >>of our time keepers can suggest the right thing to use).
> > 
> > 
> > do_gettimeofday() takes locks, so a) we can't do printk from inside it and
> 
> Dang, yeah maybe this is the showstopper.
> 
> > b) if you do a printk-from-interupt and the interrupted code was running
> > do_gettimeofday(), deadlock.
> > 
> 
> What about just using jiffies, then?
> 
> Really, sched_clock() is very broken for this (I know you're
> not arguing against that).
>
> It can go backwards when called twice from the same CPU, and the
> number returned by one CPU need have no correlation with that
> returned by another.

jiffies wouldn't have sufficient resolution for this application.  Bear in
mind that this is just a debugging thing - it's better to have good
resolution with occasional theoretical weirdness than to have poor
resolution plus super-consistency, IMO.

> However, I understand you probably just want something quick and
> dirty for 2.6.13 and would be happy just if it isn't more broken
> than before ;)

We're OK for 2.6.13, I think.  ia64 people will quickly learn to not turn
the option on.

  reply	other threads:[~2005-08-21 21:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-08-18 18:47 Luck, Tony
2005-08-21  9:13 ` Andrew Morton
2005-08-21  9:16   ` Andrew Morton
2005-08-21  9:27     ` Nick Piggin
2005-08-21  9:32       ` Andrew Morton
2005-08-21 11:25         ` Nick Piggin
2005-08-21 18:01           ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2005-08-24  0:04             ` Tim Bird
2005-08-22 17:42     ` tony.luck
2005-08-22 17:50       ` Andrew Morton
2005-08-22 20:52         ` tony.luck
2005-08-22 20:20       ` David S. Miller
2005-08-22 20:33         ` Jason Uhlenkott
2005-08-22 20:42           ` David S. Miller
2005-08-22 21:10             ` tony.luck
2005-08-22 21:15             ` Andrew Morton
2005-08-22 22:33               ` tony.luck
2005-08-22 22:38                 ` Andrew Morton
2005-08-22 23:27                   ` tony.luck
2005-08-23  1:52                     ` Paul Mackerras
2005-08-23 15:01             ` Nick Piggin
2005-08-24  0:36     ` Tim Bird
2005-08-23  7:18   ` Tony Lindgren
2005-08-23 14:07 Luck, Tony

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20050821110127.3b601268.akpm@osdl.org \
    --to=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=jasonuhl@sgi.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    --cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®