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.
-- Regards, Rajagopal _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
