Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:07:59 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -tip] perf_counter tools: shorten names for events |
| |
* Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 10:40 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 21:56 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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' > > > > There's two things: > > > > Firstly, there are "loads" are when data is loaded into the CPU. It > > has a very firm meaning. > > > > Secondly, the "loading an instruction into the CPU" idiom you > > mention is not really correct - what we generally say is to "fetch > > an instruction". > > > > In that sense using 'branch loads' is confusing, and that's why i > > corrected it. 'branches' is perfectly fine shortcut for 'branch > > instructions executed'. (or branch instructions fetched and retired) > > > > > OK, We will show : > 'branch loads' -> 'branches' > 'branch load-misses' -> 'branch-misses' > > now issue is how we can show : > > 'branch stores' -> ? > 'branch store-misses' -> ? > > 'branch prefetches' -> ? > 'branch prefetch-misses' -> ?
there's no such thing as a 'branch store'. Instructions are not stored. We shouldnt display those.
They are prefetched sometimes speculatively ... not sure there are events for them ... are there?
Ingo
| |