Re: ftrace bad timings (was: No Subject)

[Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com>]

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Hi Steven,
>
> I am currently trying to get precise numbers on the interrupt latency
> generated by a heavy load on my new writer-biased rwlock (previously
> known as fair rwlock).
>
> However, when trying to use the irqoff tracer, I hit this :
>
> # tracer: irqsoff
> #
> irqsoff latency trace v1.1.5 on 2.6.27-rc3-trace
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>  latency: 3995 us, #3/3, CPU#0 | (M:preempt VP:0, KP:0, SP:0 HP:0 #P:8)
>     -----------------
>     | task: swapper-0 (uid:0 nice:0 policy:0 rt_prio:0)
>     -----------------
>  => started at: apic_timer_interrupt
>  => ended at:   __do_softirq
>
> #                _------=> CPU#            
> #               / _-----=> irqs-off        
> #              | / _----=> need-resched    
> #              || / _---=> hardirq/softirq 
> #              ||| / _--=> preempt-depth   
> #              |||| /                      
> #              |||||     delay             
> #  cmd     pid ||||| time  |   caller      
> #     \   /    |||||   \   |   /           
>   <idle>-0     0d..1    0us!: trace_hardirqs_off_thunk (apic_timer_interrupt)
>   <idle>-0     0d.s2 3995us+: __do_softirq (0)
>   <idle>-0     0d.s3 3997us : trace_hardirqs_on (__do_softirq)
>
> Is it known/does it have a solution ? I would really like to be able to
> see sub 4ms numbers....
>
>
>   

Could you go into kernel/trace/trace.c and search for ftrace_now. Then 
change cpu_clock to sched_clock. cpu_clock is known to give large 
inaccurate timings and is not reliable with ftrace. Unfortunately, 
sched_clock can be bad on various hardware, but should always be fine 
for preempt and irqs off latency timings since that is always local to a 
single CPU.

-- Steve