lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
From
Date
On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 19:36 +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 12:25 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 09:18 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > >
> > >> In the perf_event model, given that any one of the 4 cores can be used
> > >> to program uncore events, you have no choice but to broadcast to all
> > >> 4 cores. Each has to demultiplex and figure out which of its counters
> > >> have overflowed.
> > >
> > > Not really, you can redirect all these events to the first online cpu of
> > > the node.
> > >
> > > You can re-write event->cpu in pmu::event_init(), and register cpu
> > > hotplug notifiers to migrate the state around.
> > >
> > I am sure you could. But then the user thinks the event is controlled
> > from CPUx when it's actually from CPUz. I am sure it can work but
> > that's confusing, especially interrupt-wise.
>
> Well, its either that or keeping a node wide state like we do for AMD
> and serialize everything from there.
>
> And I'm not sure what's most expensive, steering the interrupt to one
> core only, or broadcasting every interrupt, I'd favour the first
> approach.
>
> The whole thing is a node-wide resource, so the user needs to think in
> nodes anyway, we already do a cpu->node mapping for identifying the
> thing.

How about a new sub-command for node-wide events statistics?

perf node -n <node> -e <event>?




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-12-01 04:29    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans