On 9/5/2012 10:45 AM, Rajagopal Venkat wrote: > On 5 September 2012 22:52, Arjan van de Ven <ar...@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> On 9/5/2012 10:19 AM, Rajagopal Venkat wrote: >>> On 5 September 2012 22:39, Arjan van de Ven <ar...@linux.intel.com> wrote: >>>> On 9/5/2012 9:56 AM, Rajagopal Venkat wrote: >>>>>> measure1: >>>>>> ev3.start >>>>>> ev1.end <<<<< >>>>> >>>>> evX.end <<<<< >>>>> These events are causing numbers to go wrong. >>>> >>>> but out of a 20 second window.. this is a tiny tiny window... >>>> if you see 100.1% I'd buy this reasoning. >>>> but you're seeing much more than that. >>> >>> How about generating a report for 1sec duration? >> >> even for 1 second... still it's miniscule compared to this whole 1 second >> the amount of setup/teardown time just is not that huge. >> > Here are some perf timestamps, > (3979299431) > (3979303554) > (4079217947) > (4091306943) > (4091322535) > (4091336882) > When 1sec report is generated and if above timestamp gets > added to timer accumulated_runtime, no wonder why such > huge usage is reported.
question is... how did these get here? is the kernel reporting garbage time ???? _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
