[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081204230206.6e083d51@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 23:02:06 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...glemail.com>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] [Announcement] Performance Counters for Linux
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 07:31:31 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> Btw., i'm curious, why would we want to do that? It skews the results
> if the task continues executing and counters stop. To get the highest
> quality profiling output the counters should follow the true state of
> the task that is profiled - and events should be passed to the
> monitoring task asynchronously. The _events_ can contain precise
> coupled information
> - but the counters should continue.
btw stopping the task on counter overflow is an issue for things that
want to self profile, like JITs
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists