Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 10:37:56AM -0500, William Cohen wrote:
>
>>Both OProfile and PAPI are open source and could use such an performance
>>monitoring interface.
>>
>>One of the problems right now is there is a patchwork of performance
>>monitoring support. Each instrumentation system has its own set of
>>drivers/patches. Few have support integrated into the kernel, e.g.
>>OProfile. However, the OProfile driver provides only a subset of the
>>performance monitoring support, system-wide sampling. The OProfile
>>driver doesn't allow per-thread monitoring or stopwatch style
>>measurement, which can be very useful for some performance monitoring
>>applications.
>
>
> What about improving oprofile then? Unlike the vtune or perfoman people
> the oprofile authors have shown they actually are able to design sensible
> interfaces, and oprofile has broad plattform support over most support
> architectures.
Oprofile cannot be improved to provide stopwatch timing.
It is impossible because oprofile is sampling, not direct measurement.
Perfmon2, or anything which requires a system call to read a meter
[counter] of nanoseconds [per-thread virtualized cycle counter]
often adds unreasonably high overhead: hundreds of cycles or more,
instead of tens or less. CPU manufacturers are making life
difficult for users of perfctr, by muddying the meaning of
their user-readable cycle counters (see x86 RDTSC) or by omitting
user-readable cycle counters entirely (whether in the name of lower cost,
reducing "side channel" system information leaks, or otherwise.)
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
