Em Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:45:40AM +1100, Ian Munsie escreveu:
quoted text
> Excerpts from Peter Zijlstra's message of Mon Nov 29 22:54:50 +1100 2010:
> > On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 17:06 +1100, Ian Munsie wrote:
> > > This goes away if PERF_SAMPLE_CPU is added to the mix so that the
> > > timestamps are offset from the first event of *their* CPU,
> > > otherwise time-epoch can go negative, as it has done here. 

quoted text
> > How does that happen, I though the power7 sched_clock() was fully
> > synchronized and monotonic across all cores?

quoted text
> Oh the timestamps coming from the kernel are fine, I should have been
> clearer in my email. This bug is purely restricted to the userspace code
> that prints them out - in the perf_session__print_tstamp function. It
> tries to print the timestamps out so that they start at 0 and if it
> doesn't know what CPU the events came from it uses the very first event
> it sees as epoch, but at the moment that is not necessarily going to be
> the earliest event.
 
quoted text
> Thinking about it overnight, I realise that this should also go away if
> we sort them before printing things out at all, which is exactly what
> I'm proposing to do in my patches.

I removed that in the current version of this patch series:

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/acme/linux-2.6.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/p...

Now I'm just testing if a new perf.data file can be processed just fine
by older tools (not possible in the sample_id_all.v1 series) and other
combinations of older kernels with the new tool.

Probably I'll fold two patches and then submit for review.

- Arnaldo
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/