From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3453332797735824590=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan at linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Powertop] [PATCH] Fix timer and work perf events timestamp
 tracing
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 11:06:36 -0700
Message-ID: <504794AC.9040305@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: CA+Z25wXrKPzkNDR5CbNNPW4YFLUgqPCXBDNthL09dv-4EnSdOw@mail.gmail.com
To: powertop@lists.01.org
List-ID: <powertop@lists.01.org>

--===============3453332797735824590==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 9/5/2012 10:45 AM, Rajagopal Venkat wrote:
> On 5 September 2012 22:52, Arjan van de Ven <arjan(a)linux.intel.com> wro=
te:
>> On 9/5/2012 10:19 AM, Rajagopal Venkat wrote:
>>> On 5 September 2012 22:39, Arjan van de Ven <arjan(a)linux.intel.com> w=
rote:
>>>> On 9/5/2012 9:56 AM, Rajagopal Venkat wrote:
>>>>>> measure1:
>>>>>> ev3.start
>>>>>> ev1.end  <<<<<
>>>>>
>>>>> evX.end  <<<<<
>>>>> These events are causing numbers to go wrong.
>>>>
>>>> but out of a 20 second window.. this is a tiny tiny window...
>>>> if you see 100.1% I'd buy this reasoning.
>>>> but you're seeing much more than that.
>>>
>>> How about generating a report for 1sec duration?
>>
>> even for 1 second... still it's miniscule compared to this whole 1 second
>> the amount of setup/teardown time just is not that huge.
>>
> Here are some perf timestamps,
> (3979299431)
> (3979303554)
> (4079217947)
> (4091306943)
> (4091322535)
> (4091336882)
> When 1sec report is generated and if above timestamp gets
> added to timer accumulated_runtime, no wonder why such
> huge usage is reported.

question is... how did these get here?
is the kernel reporting garbage time ????



--===============3453332797735824590==--