Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 20:42:28 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Drew Richardson <drew.richardson@arm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        Wade Cherry <Wade.Cherry@arm.com>, Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ftrace: Provide trace clock monotonic raw
Message-ID: <20150507204228.0cb8b55c@grimm.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20150505145438.GA5145@dreric01-Precision-T1650>
References: <1430750469-16428-1-git-send-email-drew.richardson@arm.com>
	<199091314.42407.1430752205090.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
	<20150504200515.GA24626@dreric01-Precision-T1650>
	<20150504205748.GB21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	<20150505145438.GA5145@dreric01-Precision-T1650>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1524
Lines: 34

On Tue, 5 May 2015 07:54:46 -0700
Drew Richardson <drew.richardson@arm.com> wrote:

> CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW will advance more constantly than CLOCK_MONOTONIC.
> 
> Imagine someone is trying to optimize a particular program to reduce
> instructions executed for a given workload while minimizing the effect
> on runtime. Also suppose that ntp is running and potentially making
> larger adjustments to CLOCK_MONOTONIC. If ntp is adjusting
> CLOCK_MONOTONIC to advance more rapidly, the program will appear to
> use fewer instructions per second but run longer than it would if
> CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW had been used. The total number of instructions
> observed would be the same regardless of the clock source used, but
> how it's attributed to time would be affected.
> 
> Conversely if ntp is adjusting CLOCK_MONOTONIC to advance more slowly,
> the program will appear to use more instructions per second but run
> more quickly. Of course there are many sources that can cause jitter
> in performance measurements on modern processors, but I'd like to
> remove ntp from the list.

What's the consensus on this patch? Everyone OK with it? If so, can you
please post a new patch with the proper change log. And can everyone
else give acks. I can take it in my tree.

Thanks,

-- Steve

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/