Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 4 Jul 2004 03:15:01 +0200 | From | bert hubert <> | Subject | Re: small perfctr bug or misunderstanding |
| |
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 04:58:10PM +0200, Mikael Pettersson wrote: > Currently no; I removed them while we've been debating the > API to the (IMO more important) per-process counters. > I intend to add them back once the current stuff has been > Linus-approved.
Ok - I'd love the ability to diagnose an entire system. Furthermore, it'd be very cool if it were possible to profile another process, like strace -p pid.
I think this means looking at 'virtual counters' for arbitrary processes. Would this be possible?
I currently have a client using a 2.6.7 kernel and they have performance problems and applications I can't recompile. It'd be very good if I could spot which of their many application is thrashing the cache.
> The driver sees ENABLE set in EVNTSEL1 on your P-M, > and properly returns an error.
Ahhhh, I see. With this line things work as intended: d_control.cpu_control.evntsel[count] = v | (1 << 16) | (!count << 22) | (unit << 8);
> handle any quirks. For P6 vs K7 the differences are > minor, but to program the P4 you _really_ need helper > procedures.
Indeed. Thanks. I'll make a P6PerfCtr and an AMDPerfCtr and a P4PerfCtr. The pentium 1/2 people can work it out for themselves :-)
Regards,
bert
-- http://www.PowerDNS.com Open source, database driven DNS Software http://lartc.org Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control HOWTO - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |