Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754128AbbHFSwn (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2015 14:52:43 -0400 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:25135 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751356AbbHFSwm (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2015 14:52:42 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,623,1432623600"; d="scan'208";a="620673767" From: "Liang, Kan" To: Stephane Eranian , Peter Zijlstra CC: "mingo@redhat.com" , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , "ak@linux.intel.com" , LKML Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 1/1] perf/x86: Add Intel power cstate PMUs support Thread-Topic: [PATCH V2 1/1] perf/x86: Add Intel power cstate PMUs support Thread-Index: AQHQyIV8gIooX1MBqECTD6kaMyULcJ3+pmIAgAAp4ICAAIlEYA== Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 18:52:35 +0000 Message-ID: <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F077018D334D@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <1437986776-8438-1-git-send-email-kan.liang@intel.com> <20150806154424.GR19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by mail.home.local id t76Iqmua017295 Content-Length: 1417 Lines: 37 > >> +static cpumask_t power_cstate_core_cpu_mask; > > > > That one typically does not need a cpumask. > > > You need to pick one CPU out of the multi-core. But it is for client parts > thus there is only one socket. At least this is my understanding. > CORE_C*_RESIDENCY are available for physical processor core. So logical processor in same physical processor core share the same counter. I think we need the cpumask to identify the default logical processor which do counting. > > > I understand that these metrics are useful and needed however if I look at > the broader picture I see many PMUs doing similar things or appearing > different when they are actually very close. It would be nice to have a > more unified approach. You have RAPL (client, server) which appears as > the power PMU. You have the PCU uncore on servers which also provides > C-state residency info. Yet, all these appear differently and expose events > with different names. > I think we could benefit from a more unifie approach here such that you > would be able to do > > $ perf stat -a -e power/c6-residency/, power/energy-pkg/ > > on client and server without having to change the pmu name of the event > names. Yes, I agree. I'll think about it. Thanks, Kan ????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay?ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m???? ????????I?