From: Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brandewie@gmail.com>
To: Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@semaphore.gr>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
Dirk Brandewie <dirk.j.brandewie@intel.com>
Cc: dirk.brandewie@gmail.com,
"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Add debugfs file stats
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:05:02 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53973ABE.300@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53973078.6040907@semaphore.gr>
On 06/10/2014 09:21 AM, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> On 10/06/2014 06:47 μμ, Dirk Brandewie wrote:
>> On 06/09/2014 02:00 PM, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
>>> Add stats file in debugfs under driver's parent directory
>>> (pstate_snb) which counts the time in nsecs per requested
>>> P state and the number of times the specific state
>>> was requested.
>>>
>>> The file presents the statistics per logical CPU in the
>>> following format. The time is displayed in msecs:
>>>
>>
>> NAK
>>
>> This adds significantly to the memory footprint to gather information
>> that is available by post processing the perf tracepoint information.
>> The increase isn't horrible on single socket desktop processor machines
>> but gets big with server class machines. One vendor I have talked to considers
>> a machine with 1024 cpus to be a SMALL machine.
>>
>
> If I am not wrong the sizeof pstate_stat is 20B. On my CPU with 20 P states, we
> need 400B per logical CPU (3200B total in my desktop) plus 64B for stats pointers.
>
> In your example this would need about 400KB - 500KB?
> Is it too much for 1024 a CPUs system?
For something that will likely not be used IMO yes.
>
> I think it's a useful piece of info that we can have it directly without
> post processing tracepoint.
> Is it acceptable to conditionally compile it with a new CONFIG option?
I can see where the information could be useful but the set of people
that would find it useful is very small. Having information about residency
since boot is interesting but just barely. This file will encourage people
to build tools/scripts that rely on this file and they will complain bitterly
if/when it changes or goes away so you would be creating a defacto ABI in
debugfs.
This functionality will *not* be supportable in up coming processors where HWP
is being used. See section 14.4 of the current SDM vol. 3
http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/manuals/64-ia-32-architectures-software-developer-system-programming-manual-325384.pdf
>
>
> Thanks,
> Stratos
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-10 17:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-09 21:00 [PATCH 3/7] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Add debugfs file stats Stratos Karafotis
2014-06-10 15:47 ` Dirk Brandewie
2014-06-10 16:21 ` Stratos Karafotis
2014-06-10 17:05 ` Dirk Brandewie [this message]
2014-06-10 17:45 ` Stratos Karafotis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=53973ABE.300@gmail.com \
--to=dirk.brandewie@gmail.com \
--cc=dirk.j.brandewie@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=stratosk@semaphore.gr \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox