[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090629235500.GB5869@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 01:55:00 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [numbers] perfmon/pfmon overhead of 17%-94%
* Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net> wrote:
>> Besides, you compare perfcounters to perfmon
>
> what else shoud I be comparing it to?
>
>> (which you seem to be a contributor of)
>
> is that not allowed?
Here's the full, uncropped sentence i wrote:
" Besides, you compare perfcounters to perfmon (which you seem to
be a contributor of), while in reality perfmon has much, much
worse (and unfixable, because designed-in) measurement overhead. "
Where i question the blatant hypocracy of bringing up perfmon as a
good example while in reality perfmon has far worse measurement
overhead than perfcounters, for a wide range of workloads.
As far as i can see you didnt answer my questions: why are you
dismissing perfcounters for a minor, once per startup measurement
offset (which is entirely fixable - see the patch i sent), while you
generously allow perfmon to have serious, 90% measurement overhead
amounting to billions of instructions overhead per second, for
certain workloads?
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