[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110627155106.GG4590@erda.amd.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 17:51:06 +0200
From: Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
CC: Vince Weaver <vweaver1@...s.utk.edu>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
"Przywara, Andre" <Andre.Przywara@....com>
Subject: Re: [patch] perf_events: even more wrong events for AMD fam10h
On 27.06.11 07:22:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 17:07 -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
> > Here are two more problems I found with the superlative "generalized"
> > events on AMD fam10h.
> >
> > The "l1-dcache-loads" event measures loads *and* stores.
> > This might be as close as you can get on AMD, but it's still wrong
> > as it's not what Intel measures.
> > My patch removes it. Better might be to add a proper
> > "l1-dcache-access" event.
>
> The question to ask is, does it still have a strong correlation?
Vince,
do you think it is worth to introduce l1-dcache-access?
>
> > The "l1-dcache-load-miss" event is an invalid event. (0x141).
> > From what I can tell that event (DATA_CACHE_MISSES) does not
> > take a mask. It should be 0x41. And it's actually measuring
> > all misses, not just load misses, see above.
>
> See commit 83112e688f5f05dea1e63787db9a6c16b2887a1d. Also same as above.
It is still event 0x41, but bit 0 of the unit mask is set now for
family 15h.
>
> > The "l1-dcache-stores" event does not work. See the
> > ./validation/l1-dcache-stores test found in
> > http://web.eecs.utk.edu/~vweaver1/projects/perf-events/validation.html
> > So remove it until we figure out why.
> >
>
> Robert?
Will look at this.
>
> > Also, is the value for "no such event" 0 or -1? The perf_event_amd.c
> > file seems to use them interchangably from what I can tell.
>
> val = hw_cache_event_ids[cache_type][cache_op][cache_result];
>
> if (val == 0)
> return -ENOENT;
>
> if (val == -1)
> return -EINVAL;
>
>
> But yeah, somewhat inconsistent. Robert, Andre, could you guys go over
> the AMD events some time?
>
We will review all predefined events.
Thanks,
-Robert
--
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Operating System Research Center
--
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