Re: perf, x86: Provide a PEBS capable cycle event

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> >
> > * Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/linus/7639dae0ca11038286bbbcda05f2bef601c1eb8d
> >> Commit:     7639dae0ca11038286bbbcda05f2bef601c1eb8d
> >> Parent:     abe43400579d5de0078c2d3a760e6598e183f871
> >> Author:     Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> >> AuthorDate: Tue Dec 14 21:26:40 2010 +0100
> >> Committer:  Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> >> CommitDate: Thu Dec 16 11:36:44 2010 +0100
> >>
> >>     perf, x86: Provide a PEBS capable cycle event
> >>
> >>     Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> >>     LKML-Reference: <new-submission>
> >>     Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> >> ---
> >>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c |   26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  1 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > btw., precise profiling via PEBS:
> >
> >  perf record -e cycles:p ...
> >
> > works pretty nicely now on Nehalem CPUs and later.
> >
> The problem is that cycles:p is not equivalent to cycles in terms of how
> cycles are counted. cycles counts only unhalted cycles. cycles:p counts
> ALL cycles, event when the CPU is in halted state.

That's not really an issue in practice: it at most can cause a bit larger value for:

     2.38%       swapper  [kernel.kallsyms]      [k] mwait_idle_with_hints                             ▮

Which entry exists with regular cycles event _anyway_, because every irq entry ends 
up there.

So the difference is that this entry is now more accurate and correctly displays the 
amount of time spent in idle.

Is there any reason why we should not regard this as good thing, as a feature in 
essence?

Thanks,

	Ingo