Re: [RFC] perf: need to expose sched_clock to correlate usersamples with kernel samples

[Pawel Moll]

On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 08:54 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-04-01 at 11:29 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> > I'm still not sold on the CLOCK_PERF posix clock. The semantics are 
> > still too hand-wavy and implementation specific.
> 
> How about we define the semantics as: match whatever comes out of perf
> (and preferably ftrace by default) stuff?

My thought exactly. Maybe if we defined it as "CLOCK_TRACE" and had
equivalent "trace_clock()" function used by both perf (instead of
perf_clock()) and ftrace the semantics would became clearer? This clock
could be then described as "source of timestamps used by Linux trace
infrastructure, in particular by ftrace and perf".

PaweÅ


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/