[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1283172902.1820.897.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:55:02 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/5] perf: Add hrtimer code for PMI-less hardware
counters
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 13:13 +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> Currently, it's impossible to periodically sample hardware counters that
> lack performance monitoring interrupt (PMI) support. In order to sample
> these counters we can create an event group which is backed by a
> hrtimer, thereby simulating a PMI.
>
> When the hrtimer goes off we sample the values in the hardware
> counters. Because we obviously can't rely on the hrtimer going off at
> exactly the sample period (say, every 1000 cache misses) the values need
> to be weighted by the variable period since the last hrtimer went
> off. This is so that we can compensate for the variability in hrtimer
> period.
>
> If perf record tries to create a sampling counter and the hardware
> doesn't support it then we'll fall back to creating an event group with
> a hrtimer.
Why is this changing kernel code?
You can create those groups in userspace..
--
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