From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754201AbYIWANS (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:13:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753368AbYIWANI (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:13:08 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:12467 "EHLO smtp-out3.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753360AbYIWANH (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:13:07 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: content-disposition:references:x-gmailtapped-by; b=QOmvVqO93ITrr/pVyACqDCHJ8S2QbIdx5S2GdQBNcIf96SpX9oYPFV+LyW5z0HnyF URIP2MooyWsyqa2VTsMVA== Message-ID: <33307c790809221712x4fbd9781u958c98d4585e92a9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:12:51 -0700 From: "Martin Bligh" To: "Masami Hiramatsu" Subject: Re: Unified tracing buffer Cc: "Linux Kernel Mailing List" , "Linus Torvalds" , "Thomas Gleixner" , "Mathieu Desnoyers" , "Steven Rostedt" , darren@dvhart.com, "Frank Ch. Eigler" , systemtap-ml In-Reply-To: <48D832B6.3010409@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <33307c790809191433w246c0283l55a57c196664ce77@mail.gmail.com> <48D7F5E8.3000705@redhat.com> <33307c790809221313s3532d851g7239c212bc72fe71@mail.gmail.com> <48D81B5F.2030702@redhat.com> <33307c790809221616h5e7410f5gc37c262d83722111@mail.gmail.com> <48D832B6.3010409@redhat.com> X-GMailtapped-By: 172.25.146.18 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> I think we came up with a way to approximate this, using a callback every >> ms or so as the higher order bits, and a sequential counter in the lower >> order for those broken platforms. > > Sure, that will work. OK, that'd fix 99% of it, even if we only get time within 1ms or so (but still good ordering). >> But perhaps it would be better if we started with a discussion of which >> platforms can't do global timestamps, and why not? I know some of them >> are fixable, but perhaps not all. > > For example, my laptop (this machine/Core2Duo) doesn't return correct TSC. :-( Can you define incorrect for me (in this case)? We had similar problems with some AMD platforms that we can fix by syncing the TSCs on exit_idle, etc.