[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18901.11489.765420.408337@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 08:23:45 +1100
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Corey Ashford <cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] RFC perf_counter: singleshot support
Ingo Molnar writes:
> Sure. One sidenote - the precision of sw clocks has dropped a bit
> lately:
>
> aldebaran:~/linux/linux/Documentation/perf_counter> ./perfstat -e
> 1:0 -e 1:0 -e 1:0 -e 1:0 -e 1:0 sleep 1
>
> Performance counter stats for 'sleep':
>
> 0.762664 cpu clock ticks (msecs)
> 0.761440 cpu clock ticks (msecs)
> 0.760977 cpu clock ticks (msecs)
> 0.760587 cpu clock ticks (msecs)
> 0.760287 cpu clock ticks (msecs)
>
> Wall-clock time elapsed: 1003.139373 msecs
>
> See that slight but noticeable skew? This used to work fine and we
> had the exact same value everywhere. Can we fix that while still
> keeping the code nice?
I suggest basing the software clock on counter->ctx->time_now, and
make get_context_time use cpu_clock() always. That way we will only
call cpu_clock() once even if we have multiple cpu clock counters, and
that will eliminate the skew as well as being more efficient.
Paul.
--
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