Hi Robert, On Monday 01 November 2010 09:11:28 Robert SchÃne wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 27.10.2010, 17:42 +0200 schrieb Thomas Renninger: > > > Robert: I expect you tested this on a machine with no cpuidle > > driver registered? > > You're right, there was no idle driver, but the idle process from > process_64.c which called the idle routine. > I reported my thoughts on this on 14th of May this year 2010, mostly > claiming for a standard on where to report these events. > > You're also missing the other idle routines from x86/kernel/process.c > mwait_idle_with_hints and mwait_idle only throw start events, so they > should behave like default_idle. poll_idle on the other hand reports > the end event itself. I added you to CC of a patch that fixes the issue (and all other double or missing (for acpi_idle driver) events) in a nice generic way. It needs further userspace adjustings and I still wait for this separate patch series to go into some branch. Thanks, Thomas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-trace-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|