From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3441857747546985584==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: [Powertop] [PATCH] Fix timer and work perf events timestamp tracing Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 10:09:00 -0700 Message-ID: <5047872C.1090608@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: CA+Z25wUBxT1oCmRujQ6_nzbdSUvEmfVXoy=gxjo0Jgj-VsYxUQ@mail.gmail.com To: powertop@lists.01.org List-ID: --===============3441857747546985584== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. >> >> if so, then we're loosing events, which is no good. reporting less than = 100% >> is ok, but reporting less than real is not. > = > I did thought of it. Yes, agree that, we are loosing events for which > start timestamp we can't lose those! those are the events that give us the initial CPU frequency in the window e= tc.... --===============3441857747546985584==--