Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:52:02 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perfcounters: record time running and time enabled
	for each counter
Message-ID: <20090321155202.GA6356@elte.hu>
References: <18884.55232.197620.696687@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20090321055252.eb0673ea.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090321055252.eb0673ea.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1011
Lines: 36


* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > +	u64				time_enabled;
> > +	u64				time_running;
> 
> These look like times.  I see no indication (here) as to the units.
> 
> > +	u64				start_enabled;
> 
> This looks like a boolean, but it's u64.
> 
> > +	u64				start_running;
> 
> hard to say.
> 
> > +	u64				last_stopped;
> 
> probably a time, unknown units.
> 
> 
> Perhaps one of the reasons why this code is confusing is the 
> blurring between the "time" at which an event occured and the 
> "time" between the occurrence of two events.  A weakness in 
> English, I guess.  Using the term "interval" in the latter case 
> will help a lot.

What we use in the scheduler is "sum_time" or "runtime". A bit of a 
tongue twister but unambiguous.

	Ingo
--
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/