From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: linuxppc-dev list <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arndb@de.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: cpu_clock confusion (was: printk time confusion?)
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 16:46:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080404144641.GA15844@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1207240450.3797.22.camel@johannes.berg>
* Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > > Not sure whether the lockdep patches or something else is causing this
> > > as I haven't checked w/o the patches yet, but I seem to be having some
> > > confusion of printk timestamps:
> >
> > Tried reverting the patches ?
>
> That didn't help, so it's not the lockdep patches causing it. I'm still
> seeing printk timestamps like this:
>
> [ 2.764009 (3/3)]
> [ 4.272241 (2/2)]
> [ 4.272322 (2/2)]
> [ 4.272375 (2/2)]
> [ 2.948002 (3/3)]
>
> As you can see, I added printk_cpu and smp_processor_id() to the
> printk timestamp output and thus it is obvious that the different
> times come from different CPUs.
the fixes are queued for v2.6.26. You can pick them up from
sched-devel/latest as well:
http://people.redhat.com/mingo/sched-devel.git/README
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-04 14:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-04-02 14:23 printk time confusion? Johannes Berg
2008-04-03 10:48 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-04-03 11:07 ` Johannes Berg
2008-04-03 11:08 ` Andreas Schwab
2008-04-03 11:12 ` Johannes Berg
2008-04-03 11:24 ` Andreas Schwab
2008-04-03 16:34 ` cpu_clock confusion (was: printk time confusion?) Johannes Berg
2008-04-04 14:46 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2008-04-24 9:21 ` Johannes Berg
2008-04-24 9:24 ` cpu_clock confusion David Miller
2008-04-24 9:27 ` Johannes Berg
2008-04-28 8:46 ` Gabriel Paubert
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080404144641.GA15844@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=arndb@de.ibm.com \
--cc=benh@ozlabs.org \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).