Re: [PATCH -tip] perf_counter tools: shorten names for events

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Thu Jun 25 2009 - 05:22:54 EST



* Roland Dreier <rdreier@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > Data-TLB-Cache-Load-Reference [Hardware cache event]
>
> Could become
>
> dTLB-load
> dTLB-load-miss
> iTLB-load

I already went through this and suggested shorter names, that was
the motivation of this patch.

The new names i suggested two days ago can be found below.

Ingo

----- Forwarded message from Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> -----

Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:56:56 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
To: Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] perf_counter tools: shorten names for events
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


* Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> After :
>
> Performance counter stats for 'ls -lR /usr/include/':
>
> 259250339 L1-d-load-refs (scaled from 22.73%)
> 1187200 L1-d-load-miss (scaled from 23.01%)
> 150454 L1-d-store-refs (scaled from 23.01%)
> 494252 L1-d-prefetch-refs (scaled from 23.29%)
> 362661 L1-d-prefetch-miss (scaled from 23.73%)
> 247343449 L1-i-load-refs (scaled from 23.71%)
> 4804990 L1-i-load-miss (scaled from 23.85%)
> 108711 L1-i-prefetch-refs (scaled from 23.83%)
> 6260313 L2-load-refs (scaled from 23.82%)
> 605425 L2-load-miss (scaled from 23.82%)
> 6898075 L2-store-refs (scaled from 23.96%)
> 248334160 d-TLB-load-refs (scaled from 23.95%)
> 3812835 d-TLB-load-miss (scaled from 23.87%)
> 253208496 i-TLB-load-refs (scaled from 23.73%)
> 5873 i-TLB-load-miss (scaled from 23.46%)
> 110891027 Branch-load-refs (scaled from 23.21%)
> 5529622 Branch-load-miss (scaled from 23.02%)

here's an edited version of my suggestions:

> 259250339 dL1-loads (scaled from 22.73%)
> 1187200 dL1-load-misses (scaled from 23.01%)
> 150454 dL1-stores (scaled from 23.01%)
> 494252 dL1-prefetches (scaled from 23.29%)
> 362661 dL1-prefetch-misses (scaled from 23.73%)
> 247343449 iL1-loads (scaled from 23.71%)
> 4804990 iL1-load-misses (scaled from 23.85%)
> 108711 iL1-prefetches (scaled from 23.83%)
> 6260313 LLC-loads (scaled from 23.82%)
> 605425 LLC-load-misses (scaled from 23.82%)
> 6898075 LLC-stores (scaled from 23.96%)
> 248334160 dTLB-loads (scaled from 23.95%)
> 3812835 dTLB-load-misses (scaled from 23.87%)
> 253208496 iTLB-loads (scaled from 23.73%)
> 5873 iTLB-load-misses (scaled from 23.46%)
> 110891027 branches (scaled from 23.21%)
> 5529622 branch-misses (scaled from 23.02%)

We can leave out 'refs' i think - without any qualification
statements like '247343449 iL1-loads' are still unambigious i think.

Plus we can abbreviate dL1/iL1/dTLB/iTLB. The capitalization
matters. Also, note that it's LLC (Last Level Cache), not L2.

( Sidenote: L2 can still be an alias for LLC, even though some CPUs
have a L3 too. )

Note, branches are special - we dont really have 'branch loads',
branches are executions. 'Branches' and 'Branch-misses' are the
right term.

Do you agree?

Ingo
--
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/