Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1681082
| From | Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock |
| Date | 2017-07-04 18:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tZyS6-2nd-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <tZuYa-86m-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
> The patch in question has no explanation as to why a fully-accurate timestamp > is required and is likely an oversight. Using a coarser, but monotically > increasing, timestamp the overhead can be eliminated. You are right. I was trying to use ktime_get* functions preferably. I was aware that current_kernel_time64() could also be used if lesser granularity was preferred and that it was faster. I forgot to note that in the commit text. -Deepa
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> - 2017-07-04 14:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 18:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> - 2017-07-04 19:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-07-04 21:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 21:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> - 2017-07-06 22:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> - 2017-07-07 01:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> - 2017-07-10 16:50 +0200
csiph-web