Re: [PATCH][1/7] perfctr-2.7.2 for 2.6.6-mm2: core
From: Mikael Pettersson (mikpe_at_csd.uu.se)
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 13:52:43 +0200 (MEST) To: email@example.com
On Sat, 15 May 2004 22:39:37 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>Mikael Pettersson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> The per-process perfctrs used to be accessed via /proc/pid/perfctr,
>> but the /proc/pid/-now-denotes-that-posixy-process-grop-thingy
>> change in 2.6 broke that, so I went away from /proc/pid/ last year.
>> The per-process perfctrs would need their own file system mount point,
>> with files or directories named by actual kernel task id. readdir()
>> won't be fun to implement. The top-level access point can certainly
>> be in a special fs, the question is whether I must go further and
>> do that also for the individual control data fields?
>> The global-mode perfctrs could be accessed via /dev/cpu/$cpu/gperfctr
>> for per-cpu operations, and /dev/cpu/gperfctr/$file for global
>> operations (like start and stop). However, global-mode perfctrs
>> are considerably less important than per-process perfctrs, and
>> I'd rather remove them until the per-process stuff is done.
>Well standing back and squinting at the problem:
>As it collects samples globally, oprofile is a system-wide thing. And a
>filesytem is a system-wide thing too, so one maps onto the other nicely.
>But perfctr is a *per process* thing, and that doesn't map onto a
>filesystem abstraction very well at all.
>So unless someone comes up with a cunning way of getting your square peg
>into a filesystem's round hole, I'd be inclined to stick with a syscall
>interface. Six syscalls would be preferable to
If I drop the global-mode counters I'll still need seven calls:
six for the per-process counters, and one get-information call.
There is information that user-space needs which no other
kernel interface provides (AFAIK): the timebase-to-core multiplier
on PowerPC, and the set of forbidden(*) CPUs on x86/x86_64.
I also export several CPU feature flags. One of them, the
"can use overflow interrupt counters" flag, can't be detected
by user-space from the CPU type alone since it also depends
on local APIC availability, which in turn depends on kernel
.config, DMI scan, and kernel boot options.
I think I can eliminate the structure marshalling code, but
it will require padding structures with dummy fields for
future hardware extensions.
So seven syscalls, sys_vperfctr+0,...,sys_vperfctr+6, no
global-mode counters, and no marshalling code. Sounds Ok?
(*) You can thank Intel's HT P4 for that. Hyperthreaded P4s are
_asymmetric_ wrt the availability of the performance counters.
The solution is to restrict processes to thread #0 in each physical
CPU, but users must be told about this so they don't try to change
affinity to one of the forbidden (non-thread-#0) CPUs.
There are safety checks in place, so if they do so anyway their
counters are terminated before any damage is done.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/