On Fri, 24 May 2019 11:54:28 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> I mean the options in tracefs/options/*
>
Come to think of it, the timestamp_mode probably should have been an
option instead.
-- Steve
On Fri, 24 May 2019 08:48:44 -0700
Jason Behmer wrote:
> 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 for
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 8:25 AM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 May 2019 08:11:12 -0700
> Jason Behmer 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
On Fri, 24 May 2019 08:11:12 -0700
Jason Behmer 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 t
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 8:00 AM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 May 2019 07:17:15 -0700
> Jason Behmer wrote:
>
>
> > Hi Steven,
> > Your other email reminded me of this thread. The easy "fix" we
> > decided to pursue was to simply turn on absolute timestamps for all
> > events and use up t
On Fri, 24 May 2019 07:17:15 -0700
Jason Behmer wrote:
> Hi Steven,
> Your other email reminded me of this thread. The easy "fix" we
> decided to pursue was to simply turn on absolute timestamps for all
> events and use up the extra space, which in our particular application
> isn't a huge deal
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 9:42 PM Jason Behmer wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 7:21 PM Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 15:54:20 -0700
> > Jason Behmer wrote:
> >
> > > The concurrency model is still a little bit unclear to me as I'm new
> > > to this codebase. So I'm having some
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 7:21 PM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 15:54:20 -0700
> Jason Behmer wrote:
>
> > The concurrency model is still a little bit unclear to me as I'm new
> > to this codebase. So I'm having some trouble reasoning about what
> > operations are safe at one point o
On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 15:54:20 -0700
Jason Behmer wrote:
> The concurrency model is still a little bit unclear to me as I'm new
> to this codebase. So I'm having some trouble reasoning about what
> operations are safe at one point on the ring buffer.It seems like
> we can't be preempted in gene
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 9:53 AM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 09:30:36 -0700
> Jason Behmer wrote:
>
> > Hi Steven and Tom,
> > I recently ran into a problem with correlating timestamps across CPUs and
> > finally was able to track it down to the fact that nested events are given
On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 09:30:36 -0700
Jason Behmer wrote:
> Hi Steven and Tom,
> I recently ran into a problem with correlating timestamps across CPUs and
> finally was able to track it down to the fact that nested events are given
> zero deltas, and so are placed earlier in time than they actually
11 matches
Mail list logo
