Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756218AbYLEIR0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2008 03:17:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750972AbYLEIRS (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2008 03:17:18 -0500 Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:59228 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750773AbYLEIRR (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2008 03:17:17 -0500 Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:17:17 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <20081205.001717.216522767.davem@davemloft.net> To: mingo@elte.hu Cc: a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, paulus@samba.org, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, eranian@googlemail.com, dada1@cosmosbay.com, robert.richter@amd.com, arjan@infradead.org, hpa@zytor.com, rostedt@goodmis.org Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] [Announcement] Performance Counters for Linux From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20081205081137.GB2030@elte.hu> References: <1228464216.18899.18.camel@twins> <20081205.000716.40104924.davem@davemloft.net> <20081205081137.GB2030@elte.hu> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.1 on Emacs 22.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1583 Lines: 40 From: Ingo Molnar Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 09:11:37 +0100 > > * David Miller wrote: > > > From: Peter Zijlstra > > Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:03:36 +0100 > > > > > On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 18:57 +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > > > Peter Zijlstra writes: > > > > > > > > > So, while most people would not consider two consecutive read() ops to > > > > > be close or near the same time, due to preemption and such, that is > > > > > taken away by the fact that the counters are task local time based - so > > > > > preemption doesn't affect thing. Right? > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, I don't follow the argument here. What do you mean by > > > > "task local time based"? > > > > > > time only flows when the task is running. > > > > These things aren't measuring time, or even just cycles, they are > > measuring things like L2 cache misses, cpu cycles, and other similar > > kinds of events. > > > > So these counters are going to measure all of the damn crap assosciated > > with doing the read() call as well as the real work the task does. > > that's wrong, look at the example we posted - see it pasted below. It's still too simple to be useful. There are so many aspects other than the immediate PC that monitoring tasks want to inspect when a counter overflows. -- 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/