pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: New perfevent PMDA

To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: New perfevent PMDA
From: "White, Joseph" <jpwhite4@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 23:09:27 +0000
Accept-language: en-US
Cc: "pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx" <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20140626220149.GB29542@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <CFD1D0CD.C138%jpwhite4@xxxxxxxxxxx> <y0mwqc32ygi.fsf@xxxxxxxx> <CFD2024F.C228%jpwhite4@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20140626220149.GB29542@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: AQHPkWQ7+Of6murkTkSMtOpXHkooOZuD2/F2gAAT2YCAAETwgP//z9YA
Thread-topic: New perfevent PMDA
User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.2.140509
The reason for choosing a limited set of events is that if you enable all
possible available events then they each get a low dutycycle and hence a
high sampling error. On my Intel Core2 box if you enable all of the
possible core PMU events then the dutycycle varies from 10^-2 to 10^-4
depending on the event.

Joe

On 6/26/14, 6:01 PM, "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Hi -
>
>> > [...]
>> >- The configuration file appears to hard-code the perfcounters to be
>> >  multiplexed/available.  Did you consider automatically enumerating
>> >  all the available ones on the platform instead?
>> 
>> I don't understand your question. The code checks which hardware PMUs
>>are
>> available and then enumerates the available counters. The code then
>> enables the counters that are specified in the relevant hardware PMU
>> section in the configuration file. [...]
>
>To clarify, I wonder what value the configuration file brings.  If we
>can enumerate hardware-available counters based on the lower-level
>library, why not represent apprx. all of them to the PMNS?
>
>
>- FChE

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>