Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 4 Jul 2009 11:49:21 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2 -tip] perf_counter: Add generalized hardware vectored co-processor support for AMD and Intel Corei7/Nehalem |
| |
* Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 12:29 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > Performance counter stats for '/usr/bin/rhythmbox /home/jaswinder/Music/singhiskinng.mp3': > > > > > > 17552264 vec-adds (scaled from 66.28%) > > > 19715258 vec-muls (scaled from 66.63%) > > > 15862733 vec-divs (scaled from 66.82%) > > > 23735187095 vec-idle-cycles (scaled from 66.89%) > > > 11353159 vec-stall-cycles (scaled from 66.90%) > > > 36628571 vec-ops (scaled from 66.48%) > > > > Is stall-cycles equivalent to busy-cycles? > > > hmm, normally we can use these terms interchangeably. But they can > be different some times. > > busy means it is already executing some instructions so it will > not take another instruction. > > stall can be busy(executing) or non-executing may be it is waiting > for some operands due to cache miss. > > > > I.e. do we have this > > general relationship to the cycle event: > > > > cycles = vec-stall-cycles + vec-idle-cycles > > > > ? > > This patch is already big enough, having 206 lines. Do you want > everything in this patch ;-)
The question i asked is whether the above relationship is true. You can test this by displaying the 'cycles' metric too in your test, alongside vec-stall-cycles and vec-idle-cycles. Do the numbers add up?
Ingo
| |