From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E338B4C for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:59:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pg0-f66.google.com (mail-pg0-f66.google.com [74.125.83.66]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D052EB for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:59:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg0-f66.google.com with SMTP id j186so22285089pge.1 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:59:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 00:58:25 +0900 From: Sergey Senozhatsky To: Mark Brown Message-ID: <20170620155825.GC409@tigerII.localdomain> References: <20170619052146.GA2889@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain> <20170619103912.2edbf88a@gandalf.local.home> <20170619152055.GM3786@lunn.ch> <01a7d603-c0a2-7aae-8c8d-587063da5e61@suse.com> <20170619162317.4nxx6jsvuzvdtasz@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170619162317.4nxx6jsvuzvdtasz@sirena.org.uk> Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] printk redesign List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On (06/19/17 17:23), Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 05:54:34PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > > > I was under the impression that we do this anyway; even ATM every line > > in the printk buffer is prefixed with a timestamp. > > And we should continue with that. > > This is a configuration option (PRINTK_TIME) and isn't 100% reliable, > I've got examples in the syslog of my current system with multiple > prints being issued with the same timestamp. yes, as far as I know, timestamps are not in complete sync between CPUs. -ss