login
Login
/
Register
Search
Search this site:
Forums
News
Blogs
Features
Site
Home
»
Mailing list archives
»
linux-kernel
»
2010
»
November
»
26
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
view
thread
Previous message: [
thread
] [
date
] [
author
]
Next message: [
thread
] [
date
] [
author
]
[view in full thread]
From: Lin Ming
Subject:
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
Date: Friday, November 26, 2010 - 9:25 am
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> wrote:
quoted text
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote: >> On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 12:25 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote: >>> > On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 09:18 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote: >>> > >>> >> In the perf_event model, given that any one of the 4 cores can be used >>> >> to program uncore events, you have no choice but to broadcast to all >>> >> 4 cores. Each has to demultiplex and figure out which of its counters >>> >> have overflowed. >>> > >>> > Not really, you can redirect all these events to the first online cpu of >>> > the node. >>> > >>> > You can re-write event->cpu in pmu::event_init(), and register cpu >>> > hotplug notifiers to migrate the state around. >>> > >>> I am sure you could. But then the user thinks the event is controlled >>> from CPUx when it's actually from CPUz. I am sure it can work but >>> that's confusing, especially interrupt-wise. >> >> Well, its either that or keeping a node wide state like we do for AMD >> and serialize everything from there. >> >> And I'm not sure what's most expensive, steering the interrupt to one >> core only, or broadcasting every interrupt, I'd favour the first >> approach. > > I think the one core-only approach will limit the spurious interrupt aspect. > In perfmon, that's how I had it setup. The first CPU where uncore is > accessed owns the uncore PMU for the socket, thus all interrupts are > routed there. What you are proposing is the same. Now you can chose > you hardcode which is the default core to handle this, or (better) you > use the first core that accesses uncore. > >> >> The whole thing is a node-wide resource, so the user needs to think in >> nodes anyway, we already do a cpu->node mapping for identifying the >> thing. >> > Agreed. >
Hi, all Thanks for all the comments. I'm on travel Nov 27 to Nov 30. I'll address the comments when I'm back. Thanks, Lin Ming --
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to
majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at
http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Previous message: [
thread
] [
date
] [
author
]
Next message: [
thread
] [
date
] [
author
]
Messages in current thread:
[RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Lin Ming
, (Sun Nov 21, 5:01 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Andi Kleen
, (Sun Nov 21, 5:46 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Lin Ming
, (Sun Nov 21, 7:04 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Andi Kleen
, (Sun Nov 21, 10:00 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Peter Zijlstra
, (Sun Nov 21, 10:44 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Stephane Eranian
, (Tue Nov 23, 3:00 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Stephane Eranian
, (Tue Nov 23, 3:17 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Lin Ming
, (Tue Nov 23, 6:33 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Lin Ming
, (Wed Nov 24, 2:55 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Lin Ming
, (Wed Nov 24, 5:24 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Peter Zijlstra
, (Wed Nov 24, 11:09 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Lin Ming
, (Wed Nov 24, 11:27 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Stephane Eranian
, (Thu Nov 25, 1:48 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Stephane Eranian
, (Thu Nov 25, 2:10 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Lin Ming
, (Thu Nov 25, 10:15 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Stephane Eranian
, (Fri Nov 26, 1:18 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Lin Ming
, (Fri Nov 26, 1:29 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Stephane Eranian
, (Fri Nov 26, 1:33 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Lin Ming
, (Fri Nov 26, 2:00 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Stephane Eranian
, (Fri Nov 26, 3:06 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Peter Zijlstra
, (Fri Nov 26, 4:24 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Stephane Eranian
, (Fri Nov 26, 4:25 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Peter Zijlstra
, (Fri Nov 26, 4:36 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Stephane Eranian
, (Fri Nov 26, 4:41 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Lin Ming
, (Fri Nov 26, 9:25 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Lin Ming
, (Tue Nov 30, 8:21 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Lin Ming
, (Tue Nov 30, 8:28 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Peter Zijlstra
, (Wed Dec 1, 4:37 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Stephane Eranian
, (Wed Dec 1, 6:04 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Andi Kleen
, (Wed Dec 1, 7:08 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Peter Zijlstra
, (Wed Dec 1, 7:18 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v2] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu
, Lin Ming
, (Wed Dec 1, 10:26 pm)
Navigation
Mailing list archives
Recent posts
Popular discussions
linux-kernel
:
Ken Chen
[patch] sched: fix inconsistency when redistribute per-cpu tg->cfs_rq shares.
Nick Piggin
Re: [PATCH 2/2] smp_call_function: use rwlocks on queues rather than rcu
Kyle Moffett
Re: [PATCH 1/4] stringbuf: A string buffer implementation
Ingo Molnar
Re: [PATCH 00/12] mm/x86: bootmem
Andrew Morton
Re: [patch 1/5] wait: use lock bitops for __wait_on_bit_lock
git
:
Stephen Boyd
Re: [PATCH] Speed up bash completion loading
Jakub Narebski
Re: Avery Pennarun's git-subtree?
Junio C Hamano
Re: [PATCH v2 04/13] Teach rebase interactive the mark command
Catalin Marinas
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Stacked GIT 0.14.2
Eric Wong
[PATCH 5/5] rerere: add the diff command
git-commits-head
:
Linux Kernel Mailing List
[POWERPC] fsl_soc: add support to gianfar for fixed-link property
Linux Kernel Mailing List
fat: fix parse_options()
Linux Kernel Mailing List
ipmi: add oem message handling
Linux Kernel Mailing List
powerpc/85xx/86xx: Fix build w/ CONFIG_PCI=n
Linux Kernel Mailing List
KVM: x86 emulator: during rep emulation decrement ECX only if emulation succeeded
linux-netdev
:
Paweł Staszewski
Re: DCA/IOAT problem
Jarek Poplawski
Re: [PATCH iproute2] Re: HTB accuracy for high speed
Ingo Oeser
Re: [NET-NEXT PATCH 3/3] e1000e: add support for new 82574L part
Rick Jones
Re: UDP path MTU discovery
Dmitry Kozlov
Re: [PATCH v8] PPTP: PPP over IPv4 (Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol)
openbsd-misc
:
David Vasek
Re: how to undelete?
Gruppo BCC
Banca inviato una notifica che e necessario completare
Pau Amaro-Seoane
Re: First install: Grub doesn't find partitions
Nick Holland
Re: Unattended OpenBSD Installation
stuart van Zee
Re: CVS hosed
Colocation donated by:
Syndicate