[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111211154742.GA1213@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 16:47:42 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, acme@...radead.org,
robert.richter@....com, ming.m.lin@...el.com, andi@...stfloor.org,
asharma@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] perf_event: add PERF_COUNT_HW_REF_CPU_CYCLES generic
PMU event
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-12-11 at 09:01 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > + PERF_COUNT_HW_REF_CPU_CYCLES = 9,
> >
> > Btw., that was what 'bus cycles' tried to do a long time ago:
> > the constant, non-variable baseline heartbeat of the system.
>
> This isn't about that. Its about exposing the third fixed
> purpose counter. Intel, in their infinite wisdom, created a
> fixed purpose counter for which there is no equivalent in the
> general purpose events.
>
> Our fixed purpose counter support is predicated on the
> assumption that there is, and simply maps any event code to
> also include the fixed purpose counter if appropriate.
>
> There not being an event to map from has thus far avoided
> exposing this third fixed purpose event.
>
> The problem with remapping BUS_CYCLES is that BUS_CYCLES (now)
> is something you can program on the {2,4,8} general purpose
> counters, whereas this new thing can only ever be ran from the
> 1 fixed purpose counter.
Okay - if we want/need 3 variants then i have no objections.
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