* Robert Bragg wrote:
> > I'd strong[ly] suggest thinking about sampling as well, if
> > the hardware exposes sample information: at least for
> > profiling CPU loads the difference is like day and night,
> > compared to aggregated counts and self-profiling.
>
> Here I was thinking of
* Robert Bragg rob...@sixbynine.org wrote:
I'd strong[ly] suggest thinking about sampling as well, if
the hardware exposes sample information: at least for
profiling CPU loads the difference is like day and night,
compared to aggregated counts and self-profiling.
Here I was
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Robert Bragg wrote:
>
>> On Haswell there are 8 different report layouts that basically trade
>> off how many counters to include from 13 to 61 32bit counters plus 1
>> 64bit timestamp. I exposed this format choice in the event
>>
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org wrote:
* Robert Bragg rob...@sixbynine.org wrote:
snip
On Haswell there are 8 different report layouts that basically trade
off how many counters to include from 13 to 61 32bit counters plus 1
64bit timestamp. I exposed this
* Robert Bragg wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 09:47:17PM +, Robert Bragg wrote:
> >
> >> > And do I take it right that if you're able/allowed/etc.. to open/have
> >> > the fd to the GPU/DRM/DRI whatever context you have the right
* Robert Bragg rob...@sixbynine.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 09:47:17PM +, Robert Bragg wrote:
And do I take it right that if you're able/allowed/etc.. to open/have
the fd to the GPU/DRM/DRI whatever
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 09:47:17PM +, Robert Bragg wrote:
>
>> > And do I take it right that if you're able/allowed/etc.. to open/have
>> > the fd to the GPU/DRM/DRI whatever context you have the right
>> > credentials to also observe
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 09:47:17PM +, Robert Bragg wrote:
> > And do I take it right that if you're able/allowed/etc.. to open/have
> > the fd to the GPU/DRM/DRI whatever context you have the right
> > credentials to also observe these counters?
>
> Right and in particular since we want to
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 09:47:17PM +, Robert Bragg wrote:
And do I take it right that if you're able/allowed/etc.. to open/have
the fd to the GPU/DRM/DRI whatever context you have the right
credentials to also observe these counters?
Right and in particular since we want to allow
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 09:47:17PM +, Robert Bragg wrote:
And do I take it right that if you're able/allowed/etc.. to open/have
the fd to the GPU/DRM/DRI whatever context you have the right
credentials to also
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 04:28:48PM +0100, Robert Bragg wrote:
>> Our desired permission model seems consistent with perf's current model
>> whereby you would need privileges if you want to profile across all gpu
>> contexts but not need
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 04:28:48PM +0100, Robert Bragg wrote:
Our desired permission model seems consistent with perf's current model
whereby you would need privileges if you want to profile across all gpu
contexts but
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 04:28:48PM +0100, Robert Bragg wrote:
> Our desired permission model seems consistent with perf's current model
> whereby you would need privileges if you want to profile across all gpu
> contexts but not need special permissions to profile your own context.
>
> The
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 04:28:48PM +0100, Robert Bragg wrote:
Our desired permission model seems consistent with perf's current model
whereby you would need privileges if you want to profile across all gpu
contexts but not need special permissions to profile your own context.
The awkward
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Robert Bragg wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>
>> I'd be interested to hear whether is sounds reasonable to
>> others for us to expose gpu device metrics via a perf pmu and
>> whether adding the PERF_PMU_CAP_IS_DEVICE flag as in my
>> following patch
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org wrote:
* Robert Bragg rob...@sixbynine.org wrote:
[...]
I'd be interested to hear whether is sounds reasonable to
others for us to expose gpu device metrics via a perf pmu and
whether adding the PERF_PMU_CAP_IS_DEVICE flag as in
* Robert Bragg wrote:
> [...]
>
> I'd be interested to hear whether is sounds reasonable to
> others for us to expose gpu device metrics via a perf pmu and
> whether adding the PERF_PMU_CAP_IS_DEVICE flag as in my
> following patch could be acceptable.
I think it's perfectly reasonable,
Although I haven't seen any precedent for drivers using perf pmus to
expose device metrics, I've been experimenting with exposing some of the
performance counters of Intel Gen graphics hardware recently and looking
to see if it makes sense to build on the perf infrastructure for our use
cases.
* Robert Bragg rob...@sixbynine.org wrote:
[...]
I'd be interested to hear whether is sounds reasonable to
others for us to expose gpu device metrics via a perf pmu and
whether adding the PERF_PMU_CAP_IS_DEVICE flag as in my
following patch could be acceptable.
I think it's perfectly
Although I haven't seen any precedent for drivers using perf pmus to
expose device metrics, I've been experimenting with exposing some of the
performance counters of Intel Gen graphics hardware recently and looking
to see if it makes sense to build on the perf infrastructure for our use
cases.
20 matches
Mail list logo
