[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151207141242.GA6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 15:12:42 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, vincent.weaver@...ne.edu,
jolsa@...hat.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
eranian@...gle.com, tglx@...utronix.de, ak@...ux.intel.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:perf/core] perf/x86: Use INST_RETIRED.PREC_DIST for cycles:
ppp
On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 11:02:58AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 07:48:41AM +0100, Ingo Molnar escreveu:
> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 02:11:02PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > Also, I'm not convinced we need a new 'ppp' qualifier for any of this, why not
> > > > just replace 'pp' with this event - 'pp' is meant to be our most precise
> > > > event.
>
> > > I requested this because the PREC_DIST events can only be scheduled on a single
> > > counter, whereas the existing :pp events can be had on all 4.
>
> > > This mean you can have 2 concurrent :pp users (without RR), but not :ppp.
>
> > Ok. Will tooling do the right thing? I.e. will the first user of 'perf top' get
> > :ppp automatically, while the second one falls back to :pp?
>
> I guess so:
>
> void perf_event_attr__set_max_precise_ip(struct perf_event_attr *attr)
> {
> attr->precise_ip = 3;
Indeed so, I've since confirmed it does also works in practise.
--
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