Re: [PATCH] ftrace: Provide trace clock monotonic raw

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 5 May 2015 07:54:46 -0700
Drew Richardson <drew.richardson@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW will advance more constantly than CLOCK_MONOTONIC.
> 
> Imagine someone is trying to optimize a particular program to reduce
> instructions executed for a given workload while minimizing the effect
> on runtime. Also suppose that ntp is running and potentially making
> larger adjustments to CLOCK_MONOTONIC. If ntp is adjusting
> CLOCK_MONOTONIC to advance more rapidly, the program will appear to
> use fewer instructions per second but run longer than it would if
> CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW had been used. The total number of instructions
> observed would be the same regardless of the clock source used, but
> how it's attributed to time would be affected.
> 
> Conversely if ntp is adjusting CLOCK_MONOTONIC to advance more slowly,
> the program will appear to use more instructions per second but run
> more quickly. Of course there are many sources that can cause jitter
> in performance measurements on modern processors, but I'd like to
> remove ntp from the list.

What's the consensus on this patch? Everyone OK with it? If so, can you
please post a new patch with the proper change log. And can everyone
else give acks. I can take it in my tree.

Thanks,

-- 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/