lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jul]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/4] perf, x86: Add Intel Nehalem/Westmere uncore pmu
From
Date
On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 20:56 +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 20:48 +0800, Lin Ming wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 19:22 +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 23:57 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > > > There are no NMIs without sampling, so at least the comment seems bogus.
> > > > > > Perhaps the code could be a bit simplified now without atomics.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure if uncore PMU interrupt need to be enabled for counting
> > > > > only. What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Only for overflow handling to accumulate into a larger counter, but it doesn't
> > > > need to be an NMI for that.
> > >
> > > Uncore is hooked into the regular PMI, and since we wire that to the NMI
> > > the uncore will always be NMI too.
> > >
> > > > But it's not strictly required I would say,
> > > > 44(?) bits are probably enough for near all use cases.
> > >
> > > 44bits is in the hours range for pure cycle counts, which is so-so. I
> > > bet you're going to be very annoyed when you find your counters are
> > > wrecked after your 5 hour test run finishes.
> >
> > I'll add the interrupt handling code back.
>
> Does it work? The problem was with the hardware being iffy.

It may work on SandyBridge.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-07-05 15:15    [W:0.204 / U:0.532 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site