[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m2sjucl0a6.fsf@firstfloor.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 13:40:49 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
"x86\@kernel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, tee@....com,
Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@...e.de>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86: avoid atomic operation in test_and_set_bit_lock if possible
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> writes:
>
> One good way to see cache bounces is to run a misses/accesses ratio profile:
>
> perf top -e cache-misses -e cache-references --count-filter 10
>
> Note the two events: this runs a 'weighted' profile, you'll see (LLC)
> cache-misses of a function relative to cache-references it does, a
> misses/references ratio in essence.
If anyone does this on a Nehalem please only use 2.6.39-rc*+ which
includes the offcore patches. Anything before that will get you complete
bogus numbers.
BTW with Lin-Ming's memory latency profiling code you can do this much
more directly.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
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