On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:36:23 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 09:26:20 +0200 (CEST) > > Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote: > > > A single u64 does not take more storage space than this and it's a single > > > store. > > > > So to use rtc_tm_to_time64()? Is the work to do the calculations of the > > conversion faster than a bunch of stores that are going to be in hot > > cache? > > Look at the call site. It has already the scalar nsec value and it does a > conversion to rtc time in order to trace it. OK. I haven't looked at the callsite. I just did a quick look at the patch as is, and noticed the wasted space in the buffer for storing a bunch of ints that will never be bigger than 256. > > Ditto for the other tracepoints where the conversion from scalar nsec is > done in the tracepoint itself. This is why I like to have the maintainers review the rest. -- Steve -- You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux". Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux . Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist before submitting a driver. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
