Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] tracing: format non-nanosec times from tsc clock without a decimal point. | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:36:20 -0400 |
| |
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
| |