Re: Skylake minimal counts

Michael Petlan <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.oprofile
Message-ID <alpine.LRH.2.20.1712041757500.9416@Diego>
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017, William Cohen wrote:
> On 12/04/2017 11:19 AM, Michael Petlan wrote:
> > Hi all!
> > 
> > During testing on a Skylake-SP, I have noticed that most of the Skylake
> > events have "minimum:2000003" set, even for events that used to have much
> > lower minimum counts on various older micro-architectures, such as Haswell,
> > Ivy Bridge, etc.
> > 
> > An example might be cpu_clk_unhalted which has usually 6000, except of the
> > following models:
> > 
> > Goldmont:     minimum:2000003
> > Skylake:      minimum:2000003
> > Westmere:     minimum:100000
> > 
> > Similarly, for inst_retired, for previous CPUs, it was usually 6000, except of:
> > 
> > Broadwell:    minimum:2000003
> > Goldmont:     minimum:2000003
> > Haswell:      minimum:2000003
> > Sandy Bridge: minimum:2000000
> > Skylake:      minimum:2000003
> > Westmere:     minimum:2000003
> > 
> > (e.g. Atom, Core2, Nehalem are 6000)
> 
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> Setting the clk_unhalted minimum to 6000 would be unwise.  The interrupt handler to collect a sample is on the order of a few thousand cycles.  The clk_unhalted and inst_retired should probably stay in the range they are in, maybe be a bit lower.  For infrequent events such as baclear limits in the millions would too high and require someone to wait a long time to get enough samples.  The general idea is want lower limit to limit the number of samples to around a thousand samples a second on a processor.
> 
I don't insist on 6000 for cpu_clk_unhalted. It's just what OProfile has for most
of the Intels... 

> -Will
> 
> 
> > 
> > I know that the minimal counts are nothing precise and were determined rather
> > "randomly", but for Skylakes, it seems that 2000003 is just the "default for
> > everything" except of some exceptions...
> > 
> > Since OProfile does not allow users to enforce a lower value there, the 2000003
> > values seem to be pretty limiting, don't they?
> > 
> > Shouldn't they be re-configured? If you think so, I might do that. However,
> > in such case, I am curious how would you do it (which load/criteria would you
> > use)...
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Michael
> > 
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.