Re: [PATCH] perf_events: improve x86 event scheduling (v5)
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Mon Jan 18 2010 - 09:37:24 EST
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 15:20 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Then there's still the question of having events of multiple hw pmus in
> > a single group, I'd be perfectly fine with saying that's not allowed,
> > what to others think?
> I guess we need that. It can be insteresting to couple
> hardware counters with memory accesses...or whatever.
That really depends on how easy it is to correlate events from the
various pmus. This case could indeed do that, but the core vs uncore
tihng is a lot less clear.
> Perf stat combines cache miss counting with page faults,
> cpu clock counters.
perf stat also doesn't use groups and it still works quite nicely.
> We shouldn't limit such possibilities for technical/cleanliness
> reasons. We should rather adapt.
Maybe, I'm not a very big fan of groups myself, but they are clearly
useful within a pmu, measuring cache misses through total-access for
example, but the use between pmus is questionable.
But sure, if we can do it without too much pain, that's fine.
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/