Re: [PATCH] timekeeping: Add tracepoints for xtime changes - v2
From: John Stultz
Date: Mon Apr 01 2013 - 18:16:23 EST
On 04/01/2013 02:58 PM, David Ahern wrote:
On 4/1/13 12:55 PM, John Stultz wrote:
This all looks reasonable. Though do we need to be more explicit in what
we're tracing here? ie: CLOCK_REALTIME timestamps?
The tracepoints don't care about the what and the tp names follow the
convention of trace_<function_name> so you know where it is triggering.
I'd someday eventually like to rework the timekeeping core to be mostly
ktime_t based, building time in a more logical method up from
CLOCK_MONOTONIC rather then using CLOCK_REALTIME as our base and
subtracting time from that. I'm just worried about what sort of
constraints these tracepoints may put on a larger rework in the future.
Understood. And my comment above is not going to help -- ie., telling
perf specific tracepoints which include function names. Should I
consolidate this into a single trace_tod_update() that gets invoked in
various places? The locations can move without affecting perf. I just
want the tod update; where it happens should not matter.
I guess what I'm getting at is: What ABI are we creating here? Can
these tracepoints come and go without any consequence? Or would changing
them in the future cause application breakage?
I'm somewhat worried even trace_tod_update() is maybe too vague (again
not that the name specifically is critical, but that the semantics we're
specifying are clear). In other words, I think you're wanting a
tracepoint at any time CLOCK_REALTIME is updated by anything other then
the normal progression of time? Is that right?
You may want to also include the leapsecond modification in the tracing
as well.
thanks
-john
--
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/