Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] tracing: format non-nanosec times from tsc clockwithout a decimal point.

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 15:29 -0700, David Sharp wrote:


> >> +             ret = trace_seq_printf(
> >> +                             s, "[%08llx] %ld.%03ldms (+%ld.%03ldms): ",
> >> +                             ns2usecs(iter->ts),
> >> +                             abs_msec, abs_usec,
> >> +                             rel_msec, rel_usec);
> >> +     } else if (verbose && !in_ns) {
> >> +             ret = trace_seq_printf(
> >> +                             s, "[%016llx] %lld (+%lld): ",
> >> +                             iter->ts, abs_ts, rel_ts);
> >> +     } else { /* !verbose */
> >> +             ret = trace_seq_printf(
> >> +                             s, " %4lld%s%c: ",
> >> +                             abs_ts,
> >> +                             in_ns ? "us" : "",
> >> +                             rel_ts > mark_thresh ? '!' :
> >> +                               rel_ts > 1 ? '+' : ' ');
> 
> I just noticed something about this: with x86-tsc clock, this will
> always print a '+'. Does it matter? Also, is the 200k cycle threshold
> for '!' okay? I guess the counter clock will always end up with rel_ts
> == 1, so marks should never appear.
> 

Actually, I'm thinking that counters should not add those annotations.
As it just doesn't make sense.

-- 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/