[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1293014701.2170.111.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 11:45:01 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc: Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, paulus <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] perf: Add load latency monitoring on Intel
Nehalem/Westmere
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 11:08 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Yes, I think there is more to it than just data source, unfortunately.
> If you want to avoid returning an opaque u64 (PERF_SAMPLE_EXTRA), then
> you need to break it down: PERF_SAMPLE_DATA_SRC, PERF_SAMPLE_XX
> and so on.
I guess we can do things like:
Satisfied by {L1, L2, L3, RAM}x{snoop, local, remote} + unknown, and
encode "Pending core cache HIT" as L2-snoop or something, whatever is
most appropriate.
But does that cover every architecture?
Also, since that doesn't require more that 4 bits to encode, we could
try and categorize what else is around and try and create a well
specified _EXTRA register, I mean, we still got 60bits left after this.
--
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