[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081209190254.GA27833@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 20:02:54 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>
Cc: 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
* Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>> When there are two (or more) hw metrics to profile, the ideally best
>> (i.e. the statistically most stable and most relevant) sampling for
>> the two statistical variables (say of l2_misses versus l2_accesses) is
>> to sample them independently, via their own metric. Not via a static
>> 1khz rate - or via picking one of the variables to generate samples.
>
> Regardless of sampling method, don't you still want some way to
> enable/disable the various counters as close to simultaneously as
> possible?
If it's about counter control for the monitored task, then we sure could
do something about that. (apps/libraries could thus select a subset of
functions to profile/measure, runtime, etc.)
If it's about counter control for the profiler/debugger, i'm not sure how
useful that is - do you have a good usecase for it?
Ingo
--
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