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 majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
