Re: [perfmon] Re: [perfmon2] perfmon2 merge news

[Andi Kleen]

On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 06:13:42AM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > At least for x86 and I suspect some 1other architectures we don't
> > initially need a syscall at all for this. There is an instruction
> > RDPMC who can read a performance counter just fine. It is also much
> > faster and generally preferable for the case where a process measures
> > events about itself. In fact it is essential for one of the use cases
> > I would like to see perfmon used (replacement of RDTSC for cycle
> > counting) 
> > 
> 
> This only works when counting (not sampling) and only for self-monitoring.

It works for global monitoring too.

> 
> > Later a syscall might be needed with event multiplexing, but that seems
> > more like a far away non essential feature.
> > 
> On a machine with only two generic counters such as MIPS or Intel Core 2 Duo,
> multiplexing offers some advantages. If NMI watchdog is enabled, then you drop
> to one generic counter on on Core 2.

NMI watchdog is off by default now.

Yes longer term we might need multiplexing, but definitely not as first step.

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/