Re: [RFC 4/5] x86, perf: implements lwp-perf-integration (rc1)

[Vince Weaver]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Granted, LWP was mis-designed to quite a degree, those AMD chip 
> engineers should have talked to people who understand how modern 
> PMU abstractions are added to the OS kernel properly. 

You do realize that LWP was probably in design 5+ years ago, at a time 
when most Linux kernel developers wanted nothing to do with perf counters, 
and thus anyone they did contact for help would have been from the 
since-rejected perfctr or perfmon2 camp.

Also, I'm sure Linux isn't the only Operating System that they had in mind 
when designing this functionality.


Running LWP through the kernel is a foolish idea.  Does anyone have any 
numbers on what that would do to overhead?

perf_events creates huge overhead when doing self monitoring.  For simple 
self-monintoring counter reads it is an *order of magnitude* worse than
doing the same thing with perfctr.
  (see numbers here if you don't believe me:
    http://web.eecs.utk.edu/~vweaver1/projects/perf-events/benchmarks/rdtsc_overhead/ )

Vince

--
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/