lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [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


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-07-04 11:53    [W:0.021 / U:126.624 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site