lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4] perf_event: add PERF_COUNT_HW_REF_CPU_CYCLES generic PMU event
From
Date
On Sun, 2011-12-11 at 00:28 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> This event counts the number of reference core cpu cycles.
> Reference means that the event increments at a constant rate which
> is not subject to core CPU frequency adjustments. The event may
> not count when the processor is in halted (low power) state.
> As such, it may not be equivalent to wall clock time. However,
> when the processor is not halted state, the event keeps
> a constant correlation with wall clock time.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
> ---
> include/linux/perf_event.h | 1 +
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/perf_event.h b/include/linux/perf_event.h
> index 564769c..0885561 100644
> --- a/include/linux/perf_event.h
> +++ b/include/linux/perf_event.h
> @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ enum perf_hw_id {
> PERF_COUNT_HW_BUS_CYCLES = 6,
> PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_FRONTEND = 7,
> PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND = 8,
> + PERF_COUNT_HW_REF_CPU_CYCLES = 9,
>
> PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX, /* non-ABI */
> };

Does it make sense to add this to the 'generic' events? Are other archs
going to use this?

That is, I already queued patch 1, I'm just wondering if the generic bit
makes sense, Even BUS_CYCLES seems to be a questionable 'generic' event,
but that's history and we can't fix it.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-12-12 14:01    [W:0.895 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site