Yang, Sheng wrote:
On Wednesday 09 July 2008 23:03:19 Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 11:17 +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
So the question that is left before changing that is, if the
original author had something special in mind chosing cycles
here. I added Eric on CC for that.
I wait with my resubmission of the patch series until all
architectures agree *hope* on using getnstimeofday() - after an
ack from all sides I would revise my patch series and submit that
changes alltogether.
I got an email bounce from Eric the last time I tried to email him,
so I'm not sure he's still with Intel.
However, I don't think he had any special intention; I think he was
just porting xentrace to KVM.
Eric had completed his internship in Intel, so...
I like the term "timestamp" too. I think he used "cycles" only because
there is a function called get_cycles().
But instead of getnstimeofday(), I suggest using ktime_get() here.
It's little more precise than getnstimeofday(), and ktime_t is more
easily to be handled. And I think the overhead it brought can be
ignored too.
What is the overhead of ktime_get()?
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
