[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090203215552.38193470@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 21:55:52 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Negative values in /proc/latency_stats
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 21:46:09 -0800
> > + * (note: the average latency is the acummulated latency deviced
> > by the number
> > + * of times)
>
> I was surprised at this. Is the stack backtracer sufficiently
> reliable/repeatable for this to work?
yep it is, at least on x86 and x86-64.
>
> > + * Negative latencies (caused by time going backwards) are also
> > explicitly
> > + * skipped.
>
> Are we sure that this was the cause of the problem?
not 100%, but if you add only positive numbers..... the only other
option is an overflow.. but that would be such a huge latency that that
is not very believable.
>
> Which time source is the caller using here, and why is it going
> backwards?
scheduler clock.
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists