From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter P Waskiewicz Jr Subject: Re: netconf notes and materials Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:01:29 -0700 Message-ID: <1255129289.8937.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20091007.044718.233642056.davem@davemloft.net> <20091009174949.467ddc50.billfink@mindspring.com> <20091009.145151.130967664.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "billfink@mindspring.com" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:9775 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755176AbZJIXCE (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Oct 2009 19:02:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20091009.145151.130967664.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 14:51 -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Bill Fink > Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:49:49 -0400 > > > How did you do the NUMA memory performance monitoring that was > > presented on one of your slides? > > Using proprietary internal tools Intel is unlikely to release. > > On the bright side, some of those metrics will make their way into the > 'perf' facilities in the kernel so they can be monitored, but not all > of them. Yes, they are tools written by our CPU and chipset teams to assist in debug. To reinforce what David just said, I know Jesse Barnes is working hard with the Intel powers-that-be to get the "approved" public PMU counters into the perf utility. I'd imagine the PMU counters for IOH memory throughput will be deemed ok, since it's not uncovering any IP. If I hear anything about any of the performance counters, I'll be sure to forward that on. Cheers, -PJ