> OK. I'm still confused by that one sorry. In the patch you do: > > + else if (perf_evsel__cmp(counter, nth_evsel(T_CYCLES_IN_TX_CP))) > + update_stats(&runtime_cycles_in_txcp_stats[0], count[0]); > > But then I don't see where you use runtime_cycles_in_txcp_stats ?
You're right that variable is not needed. I'll remove it. It only needs the in_tx stat. intx-cp is still output, but directly by abs_printout, without going through a variable. > > > > But I don't think we have anything equivalent. > > > > But you have cycles-t and tx-start? > > We have: > - cycles > - cycles in transactional state > - cycles spent in successful transactions > > So your cycles-t is "cycles in transactional state". > > We would calculate cycles wasted in aborts with: > > "cycles in transactional" - "cycles in successful transactions" > > Which I think is what you're describing above with cycles-ct. Yes, that should be equivalent. That should be easy to check for and handle: check for that event and switch the formula around. I'll leave that to you as I don't have any way to test it. > Does "tx-start" just count the number of transactions begun? Does it > count nested transactions? Just begun without nesting (TSX flattens all transactions) -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/
