On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 12:59 +0100, stephane eranian wrote:
> There is a major difference between PPC and X86 here. PPC has a
> centralized register to control start/stop. This register uses
> bitmask to enable or disable counters. Thus, in hw_perf_enable(), if
> n_added=0, then you just need to use the pre-computed bitmask.
> Otherwise, you need to recompute the bitmask to include the new
> registers. The assignment of events and validation is done in
> hw_group_sched_in().
>
> In X86, assignment and validation is done in hw_group_sched_in().
> Activation is done individually for each counter. There is no
> centralized register used here, thus no bitmask to update.
intel core2 has the global control reg, but for all intents and purposes
the perf_enable/disable calls emulate this global enable/disable.
> Disabling a counter does not trigger a complete reschedule of events.
> This happens only when hw_group_sched_in() is called.
>
> The n_events = 0 in hw_perf_disable() is used to signal that something
> is changing. It should not be here but here. The problem is that
> hw_group_sched_in() needs a way to know that it is called for a
> completely new series of group scheduling so it can discard any
> previous assignment. This goes back to the issue I raised in my
> previous email. You could add a parameter to hw_group_sched_in() that
> would indicate this is the first group. that would cause n_events =0
> and the function would start accumulating events for the new
> scheduling period.
I'm not really seeing the problem here...
perf_disable() <-- shut down the full pmu
pmu->disable() <-- hey someone got removed (easy free the reg)
pmu->enable() <-- hey someone got added (harder, check constraints)
hw_perf_group_sched_in() <-- hey a full group got added
(better than multiple ->enable)
perf_enable() <-- re-enable pmu
So ->disable() is used to track freeing, ->enable is used to add
individual counters, check constraints etc..
hw_perf_group_sched_in() is used to optimize the full group enable.
Afaict that is what power does (Paul?) and that should I think be
sufficient to track x86 as well.
Since sched_in() is balanced with sched_out(), the ->disable() calls
should provide the required information as to the occupation of the pmu.
I don't see the need for more hooks.
Paul, could you comment, since you did all this for power?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community
Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support
A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy
Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers
http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
perfmon2-devel mailing list
perfmon2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/perfmon2-devel
