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

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 20:48 +0800, Lin Ming wrote:
> 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.

Does it work? The problem was with the hardware being iffy.
--
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/