Re: [RFC PATCH] perf: Add load latency monitoring on Intel Nehalem/Westmere

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Stephane Eranian
Date: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 - 3:08 am

Hi,

On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
Extracting the instruction address is not so useful. You need the
instruction and data addresses, the latency and data source. As Peter
pointed out, you can use PERF_SAMPLE_ADDR for the data address.

True. And also we would need a PERF_SAMPLE_DATA_SRC to extract
the data source information. Other archs also have that.

Note that PEBS-Load latency needs the IP+1 correction. It points to the
instruction address after the load/lfetch. But I suspect your patch already
takes care of that.

Yes, I think there is more to it than just data source, unfortunately.
If you want to avoid returning an opaque u64 (PERF_SAMPLE_EXTRA), then
you need to break it down: PERF_SAMPLE_DATA_SRC, PERF_SAMPLE_XX
and so on.
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [RFC PATCH] perf: Add load latency monitoring on Intel ..., Stephane Eranian, (Wed Dec 22, 3:08 am)