Re: [PATCH 3/6] perf: add reference time event

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:35:21AM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 07/12/2011 08:30 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Actually you first have to face a deeper problem. events are not stored
> > in order in the flow, but they are sorted from perf_session__process_events().
> > 
> > The bunch of sorted events is flushed periodically and sent to the consumer.
> > 
> > See flush_sample_queue().
> > 
> > And this sorting is made on top of the sample->time timestamps. So events
> > are first sorted on sample->time and only afterward you have access to your
> > gtod tracepoint samples. But if that gtod sample has been taken after a reboot
> > then its sample->time is not consistant with the rest. It is not well sorted
> > and thus the reftime won't be updated at the right moment.
> 
> I was aware of this function and the buffering /sorting it does; I have
> similar code in my local analysis tool (for older perf userspace). I had
> not stopped to consider the impacts on the append mode since I never use
> that option.
> 
> > So the problem is that reftime update already depends on a consistant cpu
> > timestamp.
> > 
> > I can't think about a sane way to work around that. Sorting on gtod + cpu timestamp
> > is not a solution because gtod can change.
> > 
> > I'd rather propose to refuse append mode as long as we have any timestamp. That includes
> > gtod but also sample timestamps. They are buggy if we reboot.
> 
> I'm fine with restricting append mode if samples have timestamps. In
> that case the time of day reference can be added to the header per the
> original patch set. The change in behavior does impact a lot of record
> use cases (system wide, raw).

Yep, sounds good.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/