On 12/02/2016 04:38 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 01:44:55PM +0530, Srinivas Ramana wrote:
Extend the trace_clock to support the arch timer cycle
counter so that we can get the monotonic cycle count
in the traces. This will help in correlating the traces with the
timestamps/events in other subsystems in the soc which share
this common counter for driving their timers.
I'm not sure I follow this reasoning. What's wrong with nanoseconds? In
particular, the "perf" trace_clock hangs off sched_clock, which should
be backed by the architected counter anyway. What does the cycle counter in
isolation tell you, given that the frequency isn't architected?
I think I'm missing something here.
Will
Having cycle counter would help in the cases where we want to correlate
the time with other subsystems which are outside cpu subsystem.
local_clock or even the perf track_clock uses sched_clock which gets
suspended during system suspend. Yes, they are backed up by the
architected counter but they ignore the cycles spent in suspend. so,
when comparing with monotonically increasing cycle counter, other clocks
doesn't help. It seems X86 uses the TSC counter to help such cases.
Thanks,
-- Srinivas R
--
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center,
Inc.,
is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
