* Lee Revell <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 21:24 -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 22:51 -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> > > How can the latency tracer be reporting 1898us max latency while the
> > > trace is of a 12us latency? This must be a bug, correct?
> >
> > I've found the bug. The latency tracer uses get_cycles() for
> > timestamping, which uses rdtsc, which is unusable for timing on dual
> > core AMD64 machines due to the well known "unsynced TSCs" hardware bug.
> >
> > Would a patch to convert the latency tracer to use gettimeofday() be
> > acceptable?
>
> OK, I tried that and it oopses on boot - presumably the latency tracer
> runs before clocksource infrastructure is initialized.
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions at all as to what a proper solution
> would look like? Is no one interested in this problem?
does it get better if you boot with idle=poll? [that could work around
the rdtsc drifting problem] Calling gettimeofday() from within the
tracer is close to impossible - way too many opportunities for
recursion. It's also pretty slow that way.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
