Re: [PATCH 1/4] perf, x86: Add Intel Nehalem/Westmere uncore pmu

[Lin Ming]

On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 19:22 +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 23:57 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > There are no NMIs without sampling, so at least the comment seems bogus.
> > > > Perhaps the code could be a bit simplified now without atomics.
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure if uncore PMU interrupt need to be enabled for counting
> > > only. What do you think?
> > 
> > Only for overflow handling to accumulate into a larger counter, but it doesn't 
> > need to be an NMI for that.
> 
> Uncore is hooked into the regular PMI, and since we wire that to the NMI
> the uncore will always be NMI too.
> 
> >   But it's not strictly required I would say, 
> > 44(?) bits are probably enough for near all use cases.
> 
> 44bits is in the hours range for pure cycle counts, which is so-so. I
> bet you're going to be very annoyed when you find your counters are
> wrecked after your 5 hour test run finishes.

I'll add the interrupt handling code back.


--
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/