lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH -tip] perf_counter tools: shorten names for events
    From
    Date
    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





    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-06-24 00:15    [from the cache]
    ©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean