From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Carsten Otte <cotte@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] kvmtrace: make cycle calculation architecture aware
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:34:07 +0200
Message-ID: <48770CEF.6090102@de.ibm.com>
References: <1215439013-11480-1-git-send-email-ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4874821F.4060509@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1215615799.22935.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200807101822.16163.sheng.yang@intel.com> <48760F6D.5000709@qumranet.com>
Reply-To: carsteno@de.ibm.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Yang, Sheng" <sheng.yang@intel.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@us.ibm.com>,
	Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	xiantao.zhang@intel.com, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org
To: Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mtagate7.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.156]:26297 "EHLO
	mtagate7.de.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753522AbYGKHeP (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 11 Jul 2008 03:34:15 -0400
In-Reply-To: <48760F6D.5000709@qumranet.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Avi Kivity wrote:
> What is the overhead of ktime_get()?
I think I'd like an arch specific timestamp. This way we could use our 
clock-cycle-granularity-non-privileged-timestamp instruction ;-). If 
we need a common implementation, I don't think there's much difference 
between different syscalls in terms of overhead.