[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1112061604040.23414@cl320.eecs.utk.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 16:07:21 -0500
From: Vince Weaver <vweaver1@...s.utk.edu>
To: <eranian@...il.com>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
Subject: Re: perf_event self-monitoring overhead regression
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011, stephane eranian wrote:
> I take it your test is all about self-monitoring, single event, single thread.
> Did you try breaking down the cost using TSC and rdtsc() to pinpoint where the
> regression is coming from in the 3 perf_event syscalls you're using?
I've started gathering results using rdtsc() and the results are even more
puzzling.
See:
http://web.eecs.utk.edu/~vweaver1/projects/perf-events/benchmarks/rdtsc_overhead/core2_raw_null_kernel_rdtsc.png
for example.
Those results are from a core2 machine, with the CPU scaling governor set
to "performance", the test bound to CPU0, and the test run 1000 times.
Part of the issue is that a few of those kernels are Debian unstable
distro kernels and not hand-compiled stock kernels. I'll rebuild a full
set of kernels myself and see if I can reproduce the results.
Vince
--
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