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