On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:02:00AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, 2012-09-27 at 21:31 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > + intx : 1, /* count inside > > transaction */ > > + intx_checkpointed : 1, /* checkpointed in > > transaction */ > > I really hate those names.. what are they called in transactional memory > literature?
Don't know of any other names. The papers I looked at normally don't bother with PMUs. At some point I had intx_cp, would that be better? > Also do we really need this? Using the event format stuff we could > equally well do: > > {cpu/cycles/, cpu/cycles,intx/, cpu/cycles,intx_checkpointed/} > > No need to push those bits through perf_event_attr::flags when you can > stuff then through perf_event_attr::config, esp. for very hardware > specific features. I can't use config, because the qualifiers are valid for events that already use config (like offcore). So would need a new field. In fact that is what I did, I reused some unused bits. If I moved this into sysfs this would imply that the perf stat -T code would become Haswell specific. As far as I understand normally you guys don't want things like that. Would everyone be ok with having specific code there? The perf stat -T equations output is fairly important -- it's normally the first thing to look at for TSX -- so I would like to keep it. Also as a selfish reason I would prefer something that is short to type. The qualifiers are quite common in scripts that do measurements here. So I would prefer to keep :t and :c as user interface. But the internal implementation can be adjusted of course. -Andi -- a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/