[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090811110627.GA31136@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:06:27 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Johannes Stezenbach <js@...21.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch] cache-miss and cache-refs events on P6-mobile CPUs
* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 11:34 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > @@ -116,8 +116,8 @@ static const u64 p6_perfmon_event_map[]
> > {
> > [PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES] = 0x0079,
> > [PERF_COUNT_HW_INSTRUCTIONS] = 0x00c0,
> > - [PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_REFERENCES] = 0x0000,
> > - [PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_MISSES] = 0x0000,
> > + [PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_REFERENCES] = 0x0f2e,
> > + [PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_MISSES] = 0x012e,
>
> 2e is total numer of L2 events,
>
> 0f is all mesi states
> 01 is invalid states
here's Intel's own description:
I_STATE 0x01 Counts how many times requests miss the cache.
MESI 0x0F Counts how many times cache lines in any state are accessed.
so it's pretty close in practice. The only counts that are a bit
inapplicable are fetches/prefetches it initiates on its own (they
are included here) - but those too are related to the workload in
general, so it's good as an approximation.
It's definitely better than 0x00 IMO. What do you think?
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