lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 4/5] x86, perf: implements lwp-perf-integration (rc1)
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



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-12-20 16:51    [W:0.150 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site