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

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* 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