Re: perf, how to support multiple x86 hw pmus?
From: Lin Ming
Date: Mon Aug 16 2010 - 04:39:39 EST
On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 16:25 +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 16:09 +0800, Lin Ming wrote:
> > Hi, all
> >
> > Here multiple x86 hw pmus means, for example, Intel "core" and "uncore"
> > pmu. "core" pmu is to collect per cpu data, cpu-cycles, branch-misses,
> > etc. "uncore" pmu is to collect per package data, L3 cache, Intel QPI,
> > integrated memory controller, etc.
> >
> > I am going to add Intel uncore pmu support to perf. To reduce code
> > duplicate, "uncore" pmu should reuse most of the "core" pmu code. But
> > currently, the x86 core pmu code(arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c) only
> > supports one pmu, with a definition as below.
> >
> > static struct x86_pmu x86_pmu __read_mostly;
> >
> > Many functions use above global definition "x86_pmu". It seems to me
> > that we need to re-structure x86 pmu code to support multiple hw pmus.
> >
> > Any idea?
>
> Yes, see my patch series http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/7/9/96 reworking the
> pmu interface.
Yes, I know that series.
>
> After that and some patches adding per pmu contexts adding multiple
> hardware pmus should be simple.
I didn't see the per pmu contexts patches, are you still working on
them?
>
> uncore should not share any code with the regular pmu, since they're
> mostly unrelated.
But should they share code like collect_events, schedule_events,
x86_perf_event_set_period(with some modification) etc...?
--
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/