Re: [RFC] perf: need to expose sched_clock to correlate usersamples with kernel samples

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 2013-02-05 at 14:28 -0800, John Stultz wrote:
> I prefer the ioctl method, since its less likely to be re-purposed/misused.
> 
> Though I'd be most comfortable with finding some way for perf-timestamps 
> to be CLOCK_MONOTONIC based (or maybe CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW if it would be 
> easier), and just avoid all together adding another time domain that 
> doesn't really have clear definition (other then "what perf uses").

Perhaps add a new perf system call? Does everything need to go through
the one great mighty perf_ioctl aka sys_perf_event_open()? I mean, if
there's something that can be agnostic to an event, but still very much
related to perf, perhaps another perf syscall should be created.

If people are worried about adding a bunch of new perf syscalls, maybe
add a sys_perf_control() system call that works like an ioctl but
without a file descriptor. Something for things that don't require an
event attached to it, like to retrieve a time stamp counter that perf
uses, but done in a way that it could be used for other things perf
related that does not require an event.

-- Steve


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/