[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <493EAC45.4050704@nortel.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 11:35:01 -0600
From: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To: Will Newton <will.newton@...il.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, eranian@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Arjan van de Veen <arjan@...radead.org>,
Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] Performance Counters for Linux, v2
Will Newton wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
>> Firstly, sampling "at 1msec intervals" or any fixed period is a _very_
>> wrong mindset - and cross-sampling counters is a similarly wrong mindset.
>
> If your hardware does not interrupt on overflow I don't think you have
> any choice in the matter. I know such hardware is less than ideal but
> it exists so it should be supported.
I think you could still set up the counters as Ingo describes and then
sample the counters (as opposed to the program) at a suitable interval
(chosen such that the counters won't overflow more than once between
samples).
Chris
--
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