Re: [patch 0/3] [Announcement] Performance Counters for Linux

[David Miller]

From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 09:11:37 +0100

> 
> * David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:03:36 +0100
> > 
> > > On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 18:57 +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > > > Peter Zijlstra writes:
> > > > 
> > > > > So, while most people would not consider two consecutive read() ops to
> > > > > be close or near the same time, due to preemption and such, that is
> > > > > taken away by the fact that the counters are task local time based - so
> > > > > preemption doesn't affect thing. Right?
> > > > 
> > > > I'm sorry, I don't follow the argument here.  What do you mean by
> > > > "task local time based"?
> > > 
> > > time only flows when the task is running.
> > 
> > These things aren't measuring time, or even just cycles, they are 
> > measuring things like L2 cache misses, cpu cycles, and other similar 
> > kinds of events.
> > 
> > So these counters are going to measure all of the damn crap assosciated 
> > with doing the read() call as well as the real work the task does.
> 
> that's wrong, look at the example we posted - see it pasted below.

It's still too simple to be useful.

There are so many aspects other than the immediate PC that monitoring
tasks want to inspect when a counter overflows.
--
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/