[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABPqkBQnM7M0JPHvKVe2C1r2tPAmLMUMRKu-6w2G9xy2Og9pgw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:36:40 +0100
From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] perf: use hrtimer for event multiplexing
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:51:37AM +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > The current scheme of using the timer tick was fine
> > for per-thread events. However, it was causing
> > bias issues in system-wide mode (including for
> > uncore PMUs). Event groups would not get their
> > fair share of runtime on the PMU. With tickless
> > kernels, if a core is idle there is no timer tick,
> > and thus no event rotation (multiplexing). However,
> > there are events (especially uncore events) which do
> > count even though cores are asleep.
>
> Would it be possible to only do this when uncore events
> are active? Otherwise it may have a large power cost
> and actually change results, as the core counters
> will tick more.
>
the hrtimer is activated only when multiplexing is needed
and that's for any PMU.
--
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