Thread (66 messages) flat view 66 messages, 15 authors, 2008-10-26

Re: [RFC patch 15/15] LTTng timestamp x86

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: 2008-10-17 00:13:48
Also in: lkml


On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Perhaps more importantly - if the TSC really are out of whack, that just 
means that now all your timestamps are worthless, because the value you 
calculate ends up having NOTHING to do with the timestamp. So you cannot 
even use it to see how long something took, because it may be that you're 
running on the CPU that runs behind, and all you ever see is the value of 
LTT_MIN_PROBE_DURATION.
If it isn't clear: the alternative is to just always use local timestamps.

At least that way the timestamps mean _something_. You can get the 
difference between two events when they happen on the same CPU, and it is 
about as meaningful as it can be.

Don't even _try_ to make a global clock.

Yes, to be able to compare across CPU's you'd need to have extra 
synchronization information (eg offset and frequency things), but quite 
frankly, the "global TSC" thing is already worse than even a totally 
non-synchronized TSC for the above reasons. 

			Linus
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help