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. Advertise on this site