On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-09-20 at 15:52 -0700, David Sharp wrote:
>> With the addition of the "tsc" clock, formatting timestamps to look like
>> fractional seconds is misleading. Mark clocks as either in nanoseconds or
>> not, and format non-nanosecond
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
On Thu, 2012-09-20 at 15:52 -0700, David Sharp wrote:
With the addition of the tsc clock, formatting timestamps to look like
fractional seconds is misleading. Mark clocks as either in nanoseconds or
not, and format
On Thu, 2012-09-20 at 15:52 -0700, David Sharp wrote:
> With the addition of the "tsc" clock, formatting timestamps to look like
> fractional seconds is misleading. Mark clocks as either in nanoseconds or
> not, and format non-nanosecond timestamps as decimal integers.
I got this:
On Thu, 2012-09-20 at 15:52 -0700, David Sharp wrote:
With the addition of the tsc clock, formatting timestamps to look like
fractional seconds is misleading. Mark clocks as either in nanoseconds or
not, and format non-nanosecond timestamps as decimal integers.
I got this:
With the addition of the "tsc" clock, formatting timestamps to look like
fractional seconds is misleading. Mark clocks as either in nanoseconds or
not, and format non-nanosecond timestamps as decimal integers.
Tested:
$ cd /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/
$ cat trace_clock
[local] global tsc
$ echo
With the addition of the tsc clock, formatting timestamps to look like
fractional seconds is misleading. Mark clocks as either in nanoseconds or
not, and format non-nanosecond timestamps as decimal integers.
Tested:
$ cd /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/
$ cat trace_clock
[local] global tsc
$ echo
6 matches
Mail list logo
