Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH -tip] perf_counter tools: shorten names for events | From | Jaswinder Singh Rajput <> | Date | Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:42:53 +0530 |
| |
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 21:56 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@kernel.org> wrote: > > > After : > > > > Performance counter stats for 'ls -lR /usr/include/': > > > > 259250339 L1-d-load-refs (scaled from 22.73%) > > 1187200 L1-d-load-miss (scaled from 23.01%) > > 150454 L1-d-store-refs (scaled from 23.01%) > > 494252 L1-d-prefetch-refs (scaled from 23.29%) > > 362661 L1-d-prefetch-miss (scaled from 23.73%) > > 247343449 L1-i-load-refs (scaled from 23.71%) > > 4804990 L1-i-load-miss (scaled from 23.85%) > > 108711 L1-i-prefetch-refs (scaled from 23.83%) > > 6260313 L2-load-refs (scaled from 23.82%) > > 605425 L2-load-miss (scaled from 23.82%) > > 6898075 L2-store-refs (scaled from 23.96%) > > 248334160 d-TLB-load-refs (scaled from 23.95%) > > 3812835 d-TLB-load-miss (scaled from 23.87%) > > 253208496 i-TLB-load-refs (scaled from 23.73%) > > 5873 i-TLB-load-miss (scaled from 23.46%) > > 110891027 Branch-load-refs (scaled from 23.21%) > > 5529622 Branch-load-miss (scaled from 23.02%) > > here's an edited version of my suggestions: > > > 259250339 dL1-loads (scaled from 22.73%) > > 1187200 dL1-load-misses (scaled from 23.01%) > > 150454 dL1-stores (scaled from 23.01%) > > 494252 dL1-prefetches (scaled from 23.29%) > > 362661 dL1-prefetch-misses (scaled from 23.73%) > > 247343449 iL1-loads (scaled from 23.71%) > > 4804990 iL1-load-misses (scaled from 23.85%) > > 108711 iL1-prefetches (scaled from 23.83%) > > 6260313 LLC-loads (scaled from 23.82%) > > 605425 LLC-load-misses (scaled from 23.82%) > > 6898075 LLC-stores (scaled from 23.96%) > > 248334160 dTLB-loads (scaled from 23.95%) > > 3812835 dTLB-load-misses (scaled from 23.87%) > > 253208496 iTLB-loads (scaled from 23.73%) > > 5873 iTLB-load-misses (scaled from 23.46%) > > 110891027 branches (scaled from 23.21%) > > 5529622 branch-misses (scaled from 23.02%) > > We can leave out 'refs' i think - without any qualification > statements like '247343449 iL1-loads' are still unambigious i think. >
Looks good.
> Plus we can abbreviate dL1/iL1/dTLB/iTLB. The capitalization > matters. Also, note that it's LLC (Last Level Cache), not L2. > > ( Sidenote: L2 can still be an alias for LLC, even though some CPUs > have a L3 too. ) >
Ok, I will fix it and also set the alias.
> Note, branches are special - we dont really have 'branch loads', > branches are executions. 'Branches' and 'Branch-misses' are the > right term. > > Do you agree? >
Event we used for (BPU, READ, ACCESS) is 'branch instructions retired'
So 'branch loads' we mean 'branch instruction loaded and retired'
I like all of them : 'branch loads', 'branch retired' or 'branches'
Please let me know, which one is best option so that I can prepare the patch.
Thanks, -- JSR
| |