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

[Ingo Molnar]

* 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/