On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 8:25 AM Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 24 May 2019 08:11:12 -0700 > Jason Behmer <jbeh...@google.com> wrote: > > > > > What do you think of that? > > > > > > I don't think that's confusing if its well documented. Have the user > > > flag called "force_absolute_timestamps", that way it's not something > > > that the user will think that we wont have absolute timestamps if it is > > > zero. Have the documentation say: > > > > > > Various utilities within the tracing system require that the ring > > > buffer uses absolute timestamps. But you may force the ring buffer to > > > always use it, which will give you unique timings with nested tracing > > > at the cost of more usage in the ring buffer. > > > > > > -- Steve > > > > Ah, I was thinking of doing this within the existing timestamp_mode > > config file. Having a separate file does make it much less confusing. > > Not a separate file, but a new tracing option. > > -- Steve
Sorry, I'm not sure I follow. By new tracing option do you mean a new option in the timestamp_mode file? I guess in that case would that still be the only writable option? You could write 1/0 to the file which would turn on/off force_absolute_timestamps, and reading the file would show which of absolute, delta, and force_absolute was set? Or did you mean something else by tracing option?
