* John Stultz (johnstul@us.ibm.com) wrote:
quoted text
> 
> On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 07:10 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@goodmis.org) wrote:
> > > From: John Stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
> > > 
> > > Handle accurate time even if there's a long delay between
> > > accumulated clock cycles.
> > > 
> > 
> > About this one.. we talked a lot about the importance of timekeeping at
> > the first Montreal Tracing Summit this week. Actually, someone
> > mentioned a very interesting point : in order to be able to synchronize
> > traces taken from the machine with traces taken on external hardware
> > (i.e. memory bus tracer on Freescale), taking the "real" counter value
> > rather that using the "cumulated cycles" approach (which creates a
> > virtual counted instead) would be better.
> > 
> > So I would recommend using an algorithm that would return a clock value
> > which is the same as the underlying hardware counter.
> 
> Hmm. It is an interesting issue. Clearly having the raw cycle value
> match up so hardware analysis could be mapped to software timestamps
> would be useful(although obscure) feature. However with the variety of
> clocksources, dealing properly with the clocksource wrap issue (ACPI PM
> for instance wraps about every 5 seconds) also has to be addressed.
> 
> I think you were mentioning an idea that required some work on the read
> side to handle the wraps, basically managing the high order bits by
> hand. This sounds like it would be an additional feature that could be
> added on to the infrastructure being provided in the
> get_monotonic_cycles() patch. No?
> 

Yup, exactly.

quoted text
> 
> However, all of the above is a separate issue then what this (the
> timekeeping over long delay) patch addresses, as it is not really
> directly related to the get_monotonic_cycles() patch, but instead allows
> for correct timekeeping, making update_wall_time() to function properly
> if it was deferred for longer then the clocksource's wrap time.
> 

I agree, that could apply on top of the monotonic cycles patch. It's
just a different way to see it : dealing with wrapping TSC bits,
returning the LSBs given by the hardware, rather than simply
accumulating time. This is what the patch I sent earlier (which I use in
LTTng) does. I currently expects 32 LSBs to be given by the hardware,
but it would be trivial to extend it to support any given number of
hardware LSBs.

Mathieu

quoted text
> thanks
> -john
> 
> 

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/