[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20081208.040204.139217002.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 04:02:04 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: mingo@...e.hu
Cc: paulus@...ba.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
eranian@...glemail.com, dada1@...mosbay.com,
robert.richter@....com, arjan@...radead.org, hpa@...or.com,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Performance Counters for Linux, v2
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:33:18 +0100
> Your whole statistical argument that group readout is a must-have for
> precision is fundamentally flawed as well: counters _themselves_, as used
> by most applications, by their nature, are a statistical sample to begin
> with. There's way too many hardware events to track each of them
> unintrusively - so this type of instrumentation is _all_ sampling based,
> and fundamentally so. (with a few narrow exceptions such as single-event
> interrupts for certain rare event types)
There are a lot of people who are going to fundamentally
disagree with this, myself included.
A lot of things are being stated about what people do with this stuff,
but I think there are people working longer in this area who quite
possibly know a lot better. But they were blindsided by this new work
instead of being consulted, which was pretty unnice.
--
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