[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140105175949.GC27909@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 09:59:49 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.jf.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/4] perf: IRQ-bound performance events
On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 07:22:32PM +0100, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is version 2 of RFC "perf: IRQ-bound performance events". That is an
> introduction of IRQ-bound performance events - ones that only count in a
> context of a hardware interrupt handler. Ingo suggested to extend this
> functionality to softirq and threaded handlers as well:
Did you measure the overhead in workloads that do a lot of interrupts?
I assume two WRMSR could be a significant part of the cost of small interrupts.
For counting at least it would be likely a lot cheaper to just RDPMC
and subtract manually.
The cache miss example below is certainly misleading, as cache misses
by interrupts are often a "debt", that is they are forced on whoever
is interrupted. I don't think that is a good use of this.
I guess it can be useful for cycles.
-Andi
--
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