From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com (e2.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e2.ny.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCF6D67B89 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:36:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e2.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k6J3a1kl031644 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:36:01 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.6/NCO/VER7.0) with ESMTP id k6J3a06G264404 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:36:00 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k6J3a0v8010807 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:36:00 -0400 Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:36:18 -0700 From: Mike Kravetz To: Paul Mackerras Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] powerpc: Instrument Hypervisor Calls Message-ID: <20060719033618.GA3944@monkey.ibm.com> References: <20060718204723.GA6104@w-mikek2.ibm.com> <17597.19430.983453.919592@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <17597.19430.983453.919592@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 07:00:22AM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote: > Mike Kravetz writes: > > A small update from the last version. By popular demand, both > > wall time (mftb) and cpu cycles(PURR) are collected for each call. > > It is interesting to see these two values side by side in the > > output files. > > Did you see the patch from Anton that I posted a week or so ago, which > reduces the number of plpar_hcall_* functions? I'd rather the > instrumentation stuff was based on that. Agreed. I missed the patch from last week, but saw the one from Anton that was posted today. Future instrumentation patches will assume this change. > My other comment is this: wouldn't it actually turn out simpler if we > read the timebase (and PURR, if we really want to do that too) in the > assembly code that implements plpar_hcall_*? I'll give that a try. My assembly skills are a bit rusty, so it may take a little longer to produce something. -- Mike