[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131223131051.GB585@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 14:10:52 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc: Joseph Schuchart <joseph.schuchart@...dresden.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
thomas.ilsche@...dresden.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Perf: Correct Assumptions about Sample Timestamps in
Passes
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:09:53AM -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> On 12/20/13, 5:27 AM, Joseph Schuchart wrote:
> >I know this comes late, but: As far as I can see, your change does not
> >preserve the logic of the code I suggested. The idea was to first gather
> >all the maximum timestamps of all cpus (that is, the last timestamp seen
> >on each cpu) and then determine the minimum of these maxima. These are
> >two distinct steps that I think cannot be combined in one update. Your
>
> A number of people have reported similar problems -- timestamps
> below last flush time. This approach would solve that problem for
> data processed from files, so it would be a good improvement.
Could it be near what you're looking for?
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/18/53
--
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