----- "Arthur Kepner" <akepner@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 08:05:56PM +1100, nathans@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > $ pminfo -f -m kernel.percpu.interrupts
> > ...
> >
> > kernel.percpu.interrupts.line4 PMID: 60.49.2
> > inst [0 or "cpu0"] value 1
> > inst [1 or "cpu1"] value 1
> >
> > kernel.percpu.interrupts.line1 PMID: 60.49.1
> > inst [0 or "cpu0"] value 40063
> > inst [1 or "cpu1"] value 36753
> >
> > kernel.percpu.interrupts.line0 PMID: 60.49.0
> > inst [0 or "cpu0"] value 6564744
> > inst [1 or "cpu1"] value 6712517
> >
> > I'm thinking of merging these changes after the next PCP release,
> and
> > I am keen to hear if anyone thinks they will be adversely
> affected...?
> >
>
> So your proposed change would remove the irq name, and irq chip name
> information from the instance id?
Thats correct. The irq number would become part of the metric name,
and I was thinking (but haven't implemented this piece yet) that the
irq chip name - which is basically free form text - could be exposed
as the metric short help text, e.g.
$ pminfo -t -f -m kernel.percpu.interrupts.line0
kernel.percpu.interrupts.line0 PMID: 60.49.0 [IO-APIC-edge timer]
inst [0 or "cpu0"] value 6564744
inst [1 or "cpu1"] value 6712517
Using the CPU instance domain has some advantages for client tools like
pmie, and its alot simpler to traverse (e.g. in pmchart metric selector
dialog) than the expanded matrix indom format we have now.
cheers.
--
Nathan
|