Re: [PATCH] shrink printk timestamp field

[Joe Korty <joe.korty@ccur.com>]

On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 01:47:06PM -0400, Leon Woestenberg wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 10:38:08 -0400 Joe Korty <joe.korty@ccur.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 07:35:40PM -0400, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:17:59 -0400 Joe Korty <joe.korty@ccur.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Shrink the printk timestamp field.
>>>
>>> I was looking at it from the point of view of finding out where the
>>> boot process was too slow.  For that millisecs is enough.  I am not
>>> sure where knowing printk output to the microsec would be useful for
>>> solving anything.
>>
>> Of course it's useful.  If you're working on performance or latency in
>> a disk, network or USB driver, microsecond resolution is about right.
>>
> I second this. If we have timestamps enables, let it be useful for all
> current uses. The 3 digits extra are very cheap useful information in
> that area (without resorting to more elaborate methods like the
> recently merged latency tracer).
> 
> Rather than cut 3 digits off, maybe fix some of the too-wide prints
> would solve the posters issue better.
> 
> Can we please have this patch non-committed or reverted?

I have no objection...
Joe