Re: [PATCH 4/6 -tip] perf_counter: Add Generalized Hardware interrupt support for AMD

Ingo Molnar
2009-07-05T08:06:14Z

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

> On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 03:11 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 12:22 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > * Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 13:24 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > > > * Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > $ ./perf stat -e interrupts -e masked -e int-pending-mask-cycles -- ls -lR /usr/include/ > /dev/null
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Performance counter stats for 'ls -lR /usr/include/':
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 377 interrupts
> > > > > > > 53429936 int-mask-cycles
> > > > > > > 1119 int-pending-mask-cycles
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 0.371457539 seconds time elapsed
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Agreed, this is another useful generalization - and the 'cycles
> > > > > > pending' metrics are not retrievable via any software means.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We could and should probably add a software counter for hardirqs
> > > > > > as wel. That would allow the vector/irqnr information to be
> > > > > > passed in, and it would allow architectures without irq metrics
> > > > > > in the PMU to have this counter too.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Please let me know that addition of software counter will be
> > > > > in this patch or we can do it incrementally after this patch.
> > > >
> > > > It should be in this series. That way we can cross-check whether
> > > > the soft counts and the hard counts match up and find potential
> > > > bugs that way, etc.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You want to cross check performance counter events ?
> >
> > Yes. The events are also more complete if we add per IRQ source
> > counts as well, not just summary counts.
>
> If you ask me about 'complete', I will say : "No-one is 'complete'
> except God".
>
> Let me know what you mean by 'complete' and 'more complete'.
>
> This is a hardware performance interrupt event patch. If you want
> to add IRQ source, of course you can add it in another patch, it
> is a never ending task.
>
> I do not understand why you behave like this :
>
> 1. Is today the last day of the creation.
> 2. Or you will not collect any further patches.
>
> Of course answer is "no" then what is the problem with you.
>
> Stop this complete-ness madness. You will never complete atleast
> in this life no matter what you will do.

I'm simply not going to apply patches from you for what i consider a
half-done feature.

Ingo