Re: [PATCH -tip] perf_counter tools: shorten names for events

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 10:40 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 21:56 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > * Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > here's an edited version of my suggestions:
> > > > 
> > > > >       259250339  dL1-loads              (scaled from 22.73%)
> > > > >         1187200  dL1-load-misses        (scaled from 23.01%)
> > > > >          150454  dL1-stores             (scaled from 23.01%)
> > > > >          494252  dL1-prefetches         (scaled from 23.29%)
> > > > >          362661  dL1-prefetch-misses    (scaled from 23.73%)
> > > > >       247343449  iL1-loads              (scaled from 23.71%)
> > > > >         4804990  iL1-load-misses        (scaled from 23.85%)
> > > > >          108711  iL1-prefetches         (scaled from 23.83%)
> > > > >         6260313  LLC-loads              (scaled from 23.82%)
> > > > >          605425  LLC-load-misses        (scaled from 23.82%)
> > > > >         6898075  LLC-stores             (scaled from 23.96%)
> > > > >       248334160  dTLB-loads             (scaled from 23.95%)
> > > > >         3812835  dTLB-load-misses       (scaled from 23.87%)
> > > > >       253208496  iTLB-loads             (scaled from 23.73%)
> > > > >            5873  iTLB-load-misses       (scaled from 23.46%)
> > > > >       110891027  branches               (scaled from 23.21%)
> > > > >         5529622  branch-misses          (scaled from 23.02%)
> > > > 
> > > > We can leave out 'refs' i think - without any qualification 
> > > > statements like '247343449 iL1-loads' are still unambigious i think.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Looks good.
> > > 
> > > > Plus we can abbreviate dL1/iL1/dTLB/iTLB. The capitalization 
> > > > matters. Also, note that it's LLC (Last Level Cache), not L2.
> > > > 
> > > > ( Sidenote: L2 can still be an alias for LLC, even though some CPUs 
> > > >   have a L3 too. )
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Ok, I will fix it and also set the alias.
> > > 
> > > > Note, branches are special - we dont really have 'branch loads', 
> > > > branches are executions. 'Branches' and 'Branch-misses' are the 
> > > > right term.
> > > > 
> > > > Do you agree?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Event we used for (BPU, READ, ACCESS) is 'branch instructions 
> > > retired'
> > > 
> > > So 'branch loads' we mean 'branch instruction loaded and retired'
> > > 
> > > I like all of them : 'branch loads', 'branch retired' or 
> > > 'branches'
> > 
> > There's two things:
> > 
> > Firstly, there are "loads" are when data is loaded into the CPU. It 
> > has a very firm meaning.
> > 
> > Secondly, the "loading an instruction into the CPU" idiom you 
> > mention is not really correct - what we generally say is to "fetch 
> > an instruction".
> > 
> > In that sense using 'branch loads' is confusing, and that's why i 
> > corrected it. 'branches' is perfectly fine shortcut for 'branch 
> > instructions executed'. (or branch instructions fetched and retired)
> > 
> 
> 
> OK, We will show :
> 'branch loads'           -> 'branches'
> 'branch load-misses'     -> 'branch-misses'
> 
> now issue is how we can show :
> 
> 'branch stores'          ->  ?
> 'branch store-misses'    ->  ?
> 
> 'branch prefetches'      ->  ?
> 'branch prefetch-misses' ->  ?

there's no such thing as a 'branch store'. Instructions are not 
stored. We shouldnt display those.

They are prefetched sometimes speculatively ... not sure there are 
events for them ... are there?

	Ingo