Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751290AbWHYPTP (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:19:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751364AbWHYPTP (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:19:15 -0400 Received: from ns1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:23480 "EHLO mx1.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751290AbWHYPTO (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:19:14 -0400 From: Andi Kleen To: eranian@hpl.hp.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/18] 2.6.17.9 perfmon2 patch for review: new i386 files Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 17:18:47 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200608230806.k7N8654c000504@frankl.hpl.hp.com> <200608251653.52898.ak@suse.de> <20060825150029.GJ5330@frankl.hpl.hp.com> In-Reply-To: <20060825150029.GJ5330@frankl.hpl.hp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200608251718.47698.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1940 Lines: 42 On Friday 25 August 2006 17:00, Stephane Eranian wrote: > > > > BTW you might be able to simplify some of your code by exploiting > > > > those. i386 currently doesn't have them, but i wouldn't see a problem > > > > with adding them there too. > > > > > > > I think I will drop the EXCL_IDLE feature given that most PMU stop > > > counting when you go low-power. The feature does not quite do what > > > we want because it totally exclude the idle from monitoring, yet > > > the idle may be doing useful kernel work, such as fielding interrupts. > > > > Ok fine. Anything that makes the code less complex is good. > > Currently it is very big and hard to understand. > > > > (actually at least one newer Intel system I saw seemed to continue counting > > in idle, but that might have been a specific quirk) > > > > Yes, that's my fear, we may get inconsistent behaviors across architectures. It's already the case with idle=poll vs not. > I think the only way to ensure some consistency would be to use the > enter/exit_idle callbacks you mentioned assuming those would be available for > all architectures. With this, we could guarantee that we are not monitoring > usless execution (including low-power mode) simply because we would explicitely > stop monitoring on enter_idle() and restart monitoring on exit_idle(). Or better account for it using RDTSC because often people want their numbers to add up to 100% when doing global accounting. For other events than cycles=time it is not needed because they don't happen by definition in idle. This was one reason I added the hooks because it was a FAQ on oprofile If you want them for i386 just send a patch to port them. -andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/