[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1267827943.4997.56.camel@laptop>
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:25:43 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paulus@...ba.org,
robert.richter@....com, fweisbec@...il.com,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] perf, x86: Disable PEBS on clowertown chips
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 13:57 -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> When I read AJ68, my understanding is that it's not that you do not
> get the interrupt. It will be delayed by one event. The buffer will become
> full. You won't overrun the buffer, you will get the interrupt at the next
> event. On interrupt, you have to reset the PEBS position pointer anyway.
> There is already a disconnect between the sampling period and the actual
> instruction sampled. That's not making the situation that much worse, unless
> I am missing something.
The current code doesn't use the buffering at all, it uses single-shot
PEBS by keeping pebs_event_reset 0 and setting a threshold of a single
entry, so if due to AJ68 we miss a PMI it will never come.
I guess we can fudge something, but at what point does the whole thing
stop being useful?
It would end up being something with fuzzy period and fuzzy location,
which is a loss-loss situation if you ask me.
--
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