Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161293AbXBHP1i (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:27:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752339AbXBHP1h (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:27:37 -0500 Received: from homer.mvista.com ([63.81.120.158]:13434 "EHLO gateway-1237.mvista.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752333AbXBHP1h (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:27:37 -0500 Subject: scheduler timing From: Daniel Walker To: mingo@elte.hu Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 07:25:55 -0800 Message-Id: <1170948355.19743.41.camel@imap.mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.2.1 (2.8.2.1-3.fc6) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 650 Lines: 18 After looking at the scheduler timing I was thinking it might be a fair trade off to convert sched_clock to return cycles instead of converting to nanosecond each time it reads .. I'm just probing for anyone thoughts on this .. I'm not promoting a specific implementation, but I would think the tuning nobs would have to stay in nanosecond, but everything else would be converted to cycles .. Daniel - 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/