On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 10:48 +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote: > On 2015/04/21 09:25AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:33:36 +0530 > > "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n....@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > Add a new powerpc-specific trace clock using the timebase register, > > > similar to x86-tsc. This gives us a fast, monotonic, cross-cpu clock > > > for trace entries and can be used to correlate events across cpus as > > > well as across hypervisor and guest (assuming it is not a migrated guest > > > with a non-zero tb_offset). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n....@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > --- > > > I have followed the approach used by x86-tsc here, but we could get rid of > > > trace_clock.c if we directly use get_tb() with perhaps the notrace > > > annotation. > > > Would that be preferable? > > > > > > > Probably. But all clocks used by tracing should be marked by notrace. > > Don't just wrap it with a notrace. But looking at the code, it seems > > that get_tb() is a static inline, which wont work as a pointer. Seems > > you still need the indirect function call. > > > > Note, all "inline" functions are notrace by default, so you do not need > > to add any notrace annotation to an inlined function. > > Steve, > Thanks for the clarification - the current approach is better in that > case. > > Paul, Mike, > Can you please let me know your thoughts on this?
What is the value in adding a powerpc specific clock, which requires educating people to use it, vs just using the global clock? cheers _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
