[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTimh80LorfC8O-HOPAAWK9BLYNjcXA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:43:38 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] perf, x86: Add PERF_COUNT_HW_NMI_WATCHDOG event
P4 cant move events between counters in compare with architectural
event so when nmi-watchdog is used perf top is blocked because it
needs same counters but the counters already borrowed for watchdog. as
result we need a different event and counters for watchdog.
Ingo, nonsleeping cycles is from intel sdm, so when someone start
reading this code in future will find this term in sdm fast. or i
could put the reference from sdm itself here, hm?
On Friday, April 22, 2011, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
>>
>> Due to restriction and specifics of Netburst PMU we need
>> a separated event for NMI watchdog. Note that on all other
>> than P4 PMU cpus this event is a simple alias for PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES.
>>
>> This event is only used by x86 for now so no other archs involved.
>
> hm, there's no explanation exactly why this is needed and what the alternatives
> are.
>
> This sentence:
>
>> + /* we use that named non-sleeping calls */
>
> does not parse for me.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
>
--
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