From: Jason Uhlenkott <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:33:06 -0700
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 01:20:52PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> > Not really, when I'm debugging TCP events over gigabit
> > these timestamps are exceptionally handy.
>
> Yes, but how many of those figures are really significant? I strongly
> suspect that the overhead of printk() is high enough, even when we're
> just spewing to the dmesg buffer and not the console, that we have a
> lot more precision than accuracy at nanosecond resolution.
I turn off VC logging, and I turn off disk sync'ing, so it goes
straight to the page cache.
I really do need sub-microsecond timings when I put a lot of
printk tracing into the stack.
This is a useful feature, please do not labotomize it just because
it's difficult to implement on ia64. Just make a
"printk_get_timestamp_because_ia64_sucks()" interface or something
like that :-)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |