From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Introduce timekeeper latch synchronization
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:28:05 -0700
Message-ID: <52335935.1020307@linaro.org>
References: <20130913025253.GA17218@Krystal> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1309131803360.4089@ionos.tec.linutronix.de> <523345EC.8070206@efficios.com> <52334E5A.4050609@linaro.org> <20130913182020.GB32317@Krystal>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130913182020.GB32317@Krystal>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org
List-Id: lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org

On 09/13/2013 11:20 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> This looks to me like interesting optimisation work that should be
> considered after the following question is answered: does the added
> update-side cost actually matter that much ?

Yea, fair enough. We can measure the cost first.

thanks
-john