On 9/16/05, Tim Schmielau <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Tim Schmielau wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > > It also doesn't
> > > explain why two lines, the first with timing value 0.000, and the next
> > > with 27.121 don't seem to match reality - the *actual* delta between
> > > printing those two lines is far lower than 27 seconds.
> >
> > Yes, this seems to be different, possibly unrelated problem.
> > It's interesting that the value jumps _exactly_to_zero_, though.
> > Will need to dig into the code...
>
> Did that.
> The problem is that printk uses sched_clock() to determine the time, which
> just isn't supposed to be a reliable long-time clock. We need to base the
> output on a different clock.
>
> Btw, the rate-limiting logic in printk.c looks 'interesting'. Will look
> into that, too.
>
Thanks Tim, much appreciated.
--
Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
-
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]
| |
 |