Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758900Ab2FUInM (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:43:12 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:57783 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758850Ab2FUInJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:43:09 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,315,1320652800"; d="scan'208";a="183117772" Message-ID: <4FE2DE9A.70202@intel.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:43:06 +0800 From: "Yan, Zheng" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120605 Thunderbird/13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephane Eranian CC: Peter Zijlstra , mingo@elte.hu, jolsa@redhat.com, andi@firstfloor.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 0/13] perf: Intel uncore pmu counting support References: <1339741902-8449-1-git-send-email-zheng.z.yan@intel.com> <1340208092.21745.114.camel@twins> <4FE28823.80704@intel.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1509 Lines: 38 On 06/21/2012 04:10 PM, Stephane Eranian wrote: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:34 AM, Yan, Zheng wrote: >> On 06/21/2012 12:01 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> >>> ok, so with this stuff something like: >>> >>> perf stat -ae uncore/event=clockticks/ foo >>> >>> will register a counter per cpu, which is somewhat silly since we only >>> need one per node. What would be the best way to 'fix' this? >>> >>> We could of course create another variant of -a which iterates nodes >>> instead of cpus, -N or so. >>> >>> Alternatively we could try and describe this in sysfs in some way, one >>> possibility would be to include a link to /sys/devices/system/{cpu,node} >>> or somesuch and use that link to iterate the correct space. >>> >>> Any other suggestions? >>> >> How about treat the 'cpu' parameter for uncore event as socket id instead >> of cpu id? >> > But that does not address the use case of Peter, i.e., no cpu parameter passed. > Looks like sysfs might be the only way to do this in a portable manner. > It does. For example, on a dual socket system, perf can only register uncore counter with 'cpu' parameter is equal to 0 or 1. This method is hacky, but it requires minimal change for the kernel and perf tool. Regards Yan, Zheng -- 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/