On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 19:36 +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
quoted text
> 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.
> 
> 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.

How about a new sub-command for node-wide events statistics?

perf node -n <node> -e <event>?


--
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/