Re: conflict between tickless and perfmon2
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: conflict between tickless and perfmon2
- From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 12:17:11 -0800
- Address: HP Labs, 1U-17, 1501 Page Mill road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA.
- Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, perfmon2-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, perfmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
- E-mail: eranian@xxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <alpine.LRH.0.999.0711091934210.1196@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Organisation: HP Labs Palo Alto
- References: <20071109104438.GB18909@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1194605991.6289.162.camel@twins> <alpine.LRH.0.999.0711091934210.1196@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: eranian@xxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Thomas,
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 07:40:31PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > > It looks like a solution would be to change the implementation of
> > > timeout-based switching to use HR timers instead. Similar to what is
> > > done for ITIMER_REAL and ITIMER_VIRTUAL.
>
> Using a hrtimer is perfrectly fine, I'd say it's preferred over hooks in
> some code which has absoluty no guarantee of being executed periodically
> or even executed at all. OTOH it seems rather stupid to measure stuff
> while the system is idle and doing nothing.
>
I'll start looking into this soon. To answer your point about idle,
this is not because the core is idle that counters do not capture events
related to buses or caches for instance.
--
-Stephane
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Kernel]
[Sparc Linux]
[DCCP]
[Linux ARM]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]
[Linux x86_64]
[Linux for Ham Radio]
