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.

Reply via email to