[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1263826798.4283.606.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:59:58 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, paulus@...ba.org,
davem@...emloft.net, perfmon2-devel@...ts.sf.net, eranian@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf_events: improve x86 event scheduling (v5)
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 15:53 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Not sure what you both mean by this core VS uncore thing :)
> Is it about hardware counters that apply to single hardware threads
> or shared among them inside a same core?
Yeah intel has two PMUs, one per logical cpu and one per socket/node. We
currently don't support the node one yet.
So the thing with these socket wide things is is that they are not able
to tell where the event originated, so relating that back to a task is
only possible when there's only one task running.
--
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