[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20081204.235238.229578299.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:52:38 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: arjan@...radead.org
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, paulus@...ba.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, eranian@...glemail.com,
dada1@...mosbay.com, robert.richter@....com, hpa@...or.com,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] [Announcement] Performance Counters for Linux
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 23:02:06 -0800
> 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
They can fork off a thread to do this.
No blocking on couter overflow leads to inaccurate results.
This is a pretty fundamental aspect of perf counter usage.
--
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