Re: [PATCH 2/4] perf_event: add PERF_COUNT_HW_REF_CPU_CYCLESgeneric PMU event

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Sun, 2011-12-11 at 00:28 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> This event counts the number of reference core cpu cycles.
> Reference means that the event increments at a constant rate which
> is not subject to core CPU frequency adjustments. The event may
> not count when the processor is in halted (low power) state.
> As such, it may not be equivalent to wall clock time. However,
> when the processor is not halted state, the event keeps
> a constant correlation with wall clock time.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephane Eranian <eranian@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  include/linux/perf_event.h |    1 +
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/perf_event.h b/include/linux/perf_event.h
> index 564769c..0885561 100644
> --- a/include/linux/perf_event.h
> +++ b/include/linux/perf_event.h
> @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ enum perf_hw_id {
>  	PERF_COUNT_HW_BUS_CYCLES		= 6,
>  	PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_FRONTEND	= 7,
>  	PERF_COUNT_HW_STALLED_CYCLES_BACKEND	= 8,
> +	PERF_COUNT_HW_REF_CPU_CYCLES		= 9,
>  
>  	PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX,			/* non-ABI */
>  };

Does it make sense to add this to the 'generic' events? Are other archs
going to use this?

That is, I already queued patch 1, I'm just wondering if the generic bit
makes sense, Even BUS_CYCLES seems to be a questionable 'generic' event,
but that's history and we can't fix it.
--
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/