On Fri, 2014-09-26 at 15:38 +0100, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > Then I have loads of normal normal samples, timestamped with sched clock
> > only, and every now and then one with both timestamps which then I can
> > use for time correlation. The whole point is that the frequency of such
> > "synchronisation" event can be much (much!) lower than of the normal
> > samples, but it still allows pretty good approximation (I was getting
> > accuracy of ~1 microsecond and better with sched_switch trace event
> > marked with additional raw monotonic timestamp).
>
> Okay. But in that case wouldn't it be enough to use just a single
> timestamp for each event - sched_clock for cpu-cycles and monotonic raw
> for sched_switch?
To do the correlation you need both timestamps to be "taken"
simultaneously:
perf event user event
-----O--------------+-------------O------> t_mono
: | :
: V :
-----O----------------------------O------> t_perf
Of course it's not possible get both values literally at the same time,
but placing them in a atomic context a couple of instructions from each
other still gives pretty good results. The larger this distance is, the
lower the accuracy will be. I must admit I haven't done such
experiments, but let me remind that I in my test I was getting results
in the range of 1000ns, with a single cycle of a 2GHz taking 0.5ns, so
moving the t_mono/t_perf value sampling further aside will reduce it
significantly...
Pawel
Pawel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
