updated timestamp refinement based on hw time - #68
Merged
Merged
Conversation
lasch
requested review from
WarningRan,
eklee15,
mcalman and
yuhaohaoyu
as code owners
November 26, 2025 21:41
Signed-off-by: Lars Schneidenbach <schneidenbach@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Lars Schneidenbach <schneidenbach@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Lars Schneidenbach <schneidenbach@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Lars Schneidenbach <schneidenbach@us.ibm.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a tricky one.
The existing timestamp refinement of flex traces based on the hw cycles is rigid and anchors every event on the TS5 timestamp. This has caused some rare issues if the initial ts is too close to 0 and can push the start of events into negative numbers.
This PR introduces more dynamic anchoring based on the type of event.
@yuhaohaoyu please take a closer look at this because this touches a space that we've been discussing more than once in the past.