[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1303544993.2298.42.camel@twins>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 09:49:53 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Stephane Eranian <eranian@...il.com>,
Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] perf tools: Add missing user space support for
config1/config2
On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 16:54 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > #define SNB_PF_LLC_DATA_RD (1 << 7)
> > #define SNB_PF_LLC_RFO (1 << 8)
> > #define SNB_PF_LLC_IFETCH (1 << 9)
> > #define SNB_BUS_LOCKS (1 << 10)
> > #define SNB_STRM_ST (1 << 11)
> > /* hole */
> > #define SNB_OFFCORE_OTHER (1 << 15)
> > #define SNB_COMMON (1 << 16)
> > #define SNB_NO_SUPP (1 << 17)
> > #define SNB_LLC_HITM (1 << 18)
> > #define SNB_LLC_HITE (1 << 19)
> > #define SNB_LLC_HITS (1 << 20)
> > #define SNB_LLC_HITF (1 << 21)
> > /* hole */
> > #define SNB_SNP_NONE (1 << 31)
> > #define SNB_SNP_NOT_NEEDED (1 << 32)
> > #define SNB_SNP_MISS (1 << 33)
> > #define SNB_SNP_NO_FWD (1 << 34)
> > #define SNB_SNP_FWD (1 << 35)
> > #define SNB_HITM (1 << 36)
> > #define SNB_NON_DRAM (1 << 37)
> >
> > #define SNB_DMND_READ (SNB_DMND_DATA_RD)
> > #define SNB_DMND_WRITE (SNB_DMND_RFO|SNB_DMND_WB|SNB_STRM_ST)
> > #define SNB_DMND_PREFETCH (SNB_PF_DATA_RD|SNB_PF_DATA_RFO)
> >
> > Is what I came up with, but I'm stumped on how to construct:
> >
> > #define SNB_L3_HIT
>
> All the LLC hits together.
Bits 18-21 ?
> Or it can be done with the PEBS memory latency event (like Lin-Ming's patch) or
> with mem_load_uops_retired (but then only for loads)
>
> > #define SNB_L3_MISS
>
> Don't set any of the LLC bits
So a 0 for the response type field? That's not valid. You have to set
some bit between 16-37.
>
> >
> > #define SNB_ALL_DRAM
>
> Just don't set NON_DRAM
So bits 17-21|31-36 for the response type field?
That seems wrong as that would include what we previously defined to be
L3_HIT, which never makes it to DRAM.
> > #define SNB_REMOTE_DRAM
>
> The current client SNBs for which those tables are don't have remote
> DRAM.
So what you're telling us is that simply because Intel hasn't shipped a
multi-socket SNB system yet they either:
1) omitted a few bits from that table,
2) have a completely different offcore response msr just for kicks?
Feh!
--
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