[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BB22BB0.8030208@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:49:52 -0700
From: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...glemail.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>,
Dan Terpstra <terpstra@...s.utk.edu>,
Philip Mucci <mucci@...s.utk.edu>,
Maynard Johnson <mpjohn@...ibm.com>,
Carl Love <cel@...ibm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] perf_events: support for uncore a.k.a. nest units
On 03/30/2010 12:42 AM, Lin Ming wrote:
> Hi, Corey
>
> How is this going now? Are you still working on this?
> I'd like to help to add support for uncore, test, write code or anything
> else.
>
> Thanks,
> Lin Ming
I haven't been actively working on adding infrastructure for nest PMUs
yet. At the moment we are working on supporting nest events for IBM's
Wire-Speed processor, using the current infrastructure, because of the
time limitations. Using the existing infrastructure is definitely not
ideal, but for this processor, it's workable.
There are still a lot of issues to solve for adding this infrastructure:
1) Does perf_events need a new context type (in addition to per-task and
per-cpu)? This is partly because we don't want to be mixing the
rotation of CPU-events with nest events. Each PMU really ought to have
its own event list.
2) How do we deal with accessing PMU's which require slow access methods
(e.g. internal serial bus)? The accesses may need to be placed on
worker threads so that they don't affect the performance of context
switches and system ticks.
3) How exactly do we represent the PMU's in the pseudofs (/sys or
/proc)? And how exactly does the user specify the PMU to perf_events?
Peter Zijlstra and Stephane Eranian both recommended opening the PMU
with open() and then passing the resulting fd in through the
perf_event_attr struct.
4) How do we choose a CPU to do the housekeeping work for a particular
nest PMU. Peter thought that user space should still specify the it via
open_perf_event() cpu parameter, but there's also an argument to be made
for the kernel choosing the best CPU to handle the job, or at least make
it optional for the user to choose the CPU.
I'm sure there are other issues as well. If you'd like to start working
on some (or all!) of these, you are more than welcome to. I think we
need to toss around some more ideas before committing much to code at
this point.
- Corey
--
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