[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1303545007.2298.43.camel@twins>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 09:50:07 +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 17:00 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 12:57:42AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 23:54 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 23:37 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > The below needs filling out for !x86 (which I filled out with
> > > > unsupported events) and x86 needs the offcore bits fixed to auto select
> > > > between the two offcore events.
> > >
> > > Urgh, so SNB has different MSR_OFFCORE_RESPONSE bits and needs another table.
> >
> > Also, NHM offcore bits were wrong... it implemented _ACCESS as _HIT and
>
> What is ACCESS if not a HIT?
An ACCESS is all requests for data that comes in, after which you either
HIT or MISS in which case you have to ask someone else down the line.
> > counted OTHER_CORE_HIT* as MISS even though its clearly documented as an
> > L3 hit.
>
> When the other core owns the cache line it has to be fetched from there.
> That's not a LLC hit.
Then _why_ are they described in 30.6.1.3, table 30-15, as:
OTHER_CORE_HIT_SNP 9 (R/W). L3 Hit: ....
OTHER_CORE_HITM 10 (R/W). L3 Hit: ...
--
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