On Thursday 10 July 2008 21:32:29 Avi Kivity wrote: > 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()? Well, I just means it wrapped getnstimeofday(), and compared to rdtscll(), it got little overhead... :) -- Thanks Yang, Sheng -- 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
