[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] perf_events: improve x86 event scheduling (v5)
    On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 03:37:01PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    > On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 15:20 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
    > >
    > > > Then there's still the question of having events of multiple hw pmus in
    > > > a single group, I'd be perfectly fine with saying that's not allowed,
    > > > what to others think?
    > >
    > >
    > > I guess we need that. It can be insteresting to couple
    > > hardware counters with memory accesses...or whatever.
    > That really depends on how easy it is to correlate events from the
    > various pmus. This case could indeed do that, but the core vs uncore
    > tihng is a lot less clear.

    Not sure what you both mean by this core VS uncore thing :)
    Is it about hardware counters that apply to single hardware threads
    or shared among them inside a same core?

    > > Perf stat combines cache miss counting with page faults,
    > > cpu clock counters.
    > perf stat also doesn't use groups and it still works quite nicely.

    Ah? I thought it does.

    > > We shouldn't limit such possibilities for technical/cleanliness
    > > reasons. We should rather adapt.
    > Maybe, I'm not a very big fan of groups myself, but they are clearly
    > useful within a pmu, measuring cache misses through total-access for
    > example, but the use between pmus is questionable.

    Cross pmu, these seem to only make sense for non pinned groups.
    If you want two non-pinned counters to be paired and not randomly
    and separately scheduled.

    For other cases, indeed I'm not sure it is useful :)

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-01-18 15:57    [W:0.023 / U:53.812 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site