Re: [PATCH 4/6 -tip] perf_counter: Add Generalized Hardwareinterrupt support for AMD

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Sat Jul 04 2009 - 21:12:31 EST



* Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 12:22 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 13:24 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > * Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > $ ./perf stat -e interrupts -e masked -e int-pending-mask-cycles -- ls -lR /usr/include/ > /dev/null
> > > > >
> > > > > Performance counter stats for 'ls -lR /usr/include/':
> > > > >
> > > > > 377 interrupts
> > > > > 53429936 int-mask-cycles
> > > > > 1119 int-pending-mask-cycles
> > > > >
> > > > > 0.371457539 seconds time elapsed
> > > >
> > > > Agreed, this is another useful generalization - and the 'cycles
> > > > pending' metrics are not retrievable via any software means.
> > > >
> > > > We could and should probably add a software counter for hardirqs
> > > > as wel. That would allow the vector/irqnr information to be
> > > > passed in, and it would allow architectures without irq metrics
> > > > in the PMU to have this counter too.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Please let me know that addition of software counter will be
> > > in this patch or we can do it incrementally after this patch.
> >
> > It should be in this series. That way we can cross-check whether
> > the soft counts and the hard counts match up and find potential
> > bugs that way, etc.
> >
>
> You want to cross check performance counter events ?

Yes. The events are also more complete if we add per IRQ source
counts as well, not just summary counts.

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/