Hi,

On (09/05/12 15:52), Rajagopal Venkat wrote:
> Incorrect timer and work perf events timestamp tracing is one
> of the reason for reporting usage over 100%. This patch will
> resolve the issue by
> - rejecting the events for which entry timestamp is not recorded.

how is that possible?
do you mean erasing between measurements?


schematically:

measure0:

ev1.start
ev2.start
ev2.end

processing
clear


measure1:
ev3.start
ev1.end  <<<<<
ev3.end

processing
clear


if so, then we're loosing events, which is no good. reporting less than 100%
is ok, but reporting less than real is not.


p.s.
I'll try to check emails, but most probably will be off-line most of the day.

	-ss


> Currently these events exit timestamp itself is considered as
> usage period resulting in over 100% usage.
> - clearing event timestamps from global map at the end of each
> measurement to avoid collision with earlier recorded timestamps.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rajagopal Venkat <rajagopal.venkat(a)linaro.org>
> ---
>  src/process/timer.cpp | 5 ++++-
>  src/process/work.cpp  | 5 ++++-
>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/src/process/timer.cpp b/src/process/timer.cpp
> index 8917490..db074c4 100644
> --- a/src/process/timer.cpp
> +++ b/src/process/timer.cpp
> @@ -79,7 +79,8 @@ uint64_t timer::done(uint64_t time, uint64_t timer_struct)
>  {
>  	int64_t delta;
>  
> -	if (running_since[timer_struct] > time)
> +	if (running_since.find(timer_struct) == running_since.end() ||
> +			running_since[timer_struct] > time)
>  		return 0;
>  
>  	delta = time - running_since[timer_struct];
> @@ -147,6 +148,8 @@ void clear_timers(void)
>  		all_timers.erase(it);
>  		it = all_timers.begin();
>  	}
> +
> +	running_since.clear();
>  }
>  
>  bool timer::is_deferred(void)
> diff --git a/src/process/work.cpp b/src/process/work.cpp
> index 82f13a2..e436643 100644
> --- a/src/process/work.cpp
> +++ b/src/process/work.cpp
> @@ -56,7 +56,8 @@ uint64_t work::done(uint64_t time, uint64_t work_struct)
>  {
>  	int64_t delta;
>  
> -	if (running_since[work_struct] > time)
> +	if (running_since.find(work_struct) == running_since.end() ||
> +			running_since[work_struct] > time)
>  		return 0;
>  
>  	delta = time - running_since[work_struct];
> @@ -102,6 +103,8 @@ void clear_work(void)
>  		all_work.erase(it);
>  		it = all_work.begin();
>  	}
> +
> +	running_since.clear();
>  }
>  
>  
> -- 
> 1.7.11.3
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PowerTop mailing list
> PowerTop(a)lists.01.org
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/powertop
>