[RFC] [PATCH] Trace TLBIE's
Balbir Singh
bsingharora at gmail.com
Thu Apr 6 16:23:25 AEST 2017
On Thu, 2017-04-06 at 16:03 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Alistair Popple <alistair at popple.id.au> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:40:36 PM Balbir Singh wrote:
> > >
> > > > But overall I guess it's OK. We'd want to do a quick benchmark to make
> > > > sure it's not adding any overhead.
> > >
> > > OK.. I'll try and find a benchmark and run it with traces disabled.
> >
> > For what's it's worth I didn't notice any slow down running a NAMD
> > test with tracing disabled and ~400000 tlbie's in 34s. Turning tracing
> > on could have slowed things down ever so slightly, but I didn't notice
> > as it may have just been in the noise of the benchmark I was running
> > (I wasn't specifically looking at timing, hence the vagueness of the
> > remarks).
> >
> > Otherwise the patch worked and would be useful - I have already had to
> > setup tlbie counting/tracing several times in the last 12 months.
> >
> > Tested-by: Alistair Popple <alistair at popple.id.au>
>
> OK thanks.
>
> To get it merged I'd like:
> - always called after the barriers.
> - no calls in loops, instead add a "count" field to the trace point and
> when we call it multiple times in a loop we pass the count.
>
> So you'd see entries something like:
>
> <...>-5141 [062] 1354.486693: tlbie: lpid=0, local=1, rb=0x7b5d0ff874f11f1, rs=0, ric=0, prs=0, r=0, count=128
>
I'll double check the patches and repost if required.
Balbir Singh.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list