Re: aperf/mperf

2010-11-23 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 20/11/2010 11:54 Andriy Gapon said the following: > This suggestion sounds quite appealing. > But I have some concerns. > What if hardware has the capability, but there is no cpufreq - could these > MSRs > be still useful? Or are they useful only with cpufreq? Probably the > latter... > Then

Re: aperf/mperf

2010-11-20 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 19/11/2010 21:08 Nate Lawson said the following: > On 11/19/2010 6:39 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> >> I am thinking about providing two APIs for this. >> >> 1. KPI >> void cpu_get_a_m_perf(u_int cpu, uint64_t *aperf, uint64_t *mperf); >> >> 2. Userland >> sysctl dev.cpu.N.aperf_mperf that returns

Re: aperf/mperf

2010-11-19 Thread Nate Lawson
On 11/19/2010 6:39 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > I am thinking about providing two APIs for this. > > 1. KPI > void cpu_get_a_m_perf(u_int cpu, uint64_t *aperf, uint64_t *mperf); > > 2. Userland > sysctl dev.cpu.N.aperf_mperf that returns two UQUAD values. > > But I am not sure where to put the c

Re: aperf/mperf

2010-11-19 Thread Andriy Gapon
[looks like I originally sent the reply only privately] on 19/11/2010 16:50 Daniel Nebdal said the following: > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> >> I am thinking about providing two APIs for this. >> >> 1. KPI >> void cpu_get_a_m_perf(u_int cpu, uint64_t *aperf, uint64_t *

Re: aperf/mperf

2010-11-19 Thread Daniel Nebdal
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > I am thinking about providing two APIs for this. > > 1. KPI > void cpu_get_a_m_perf(u_int cpu, uint64_t *aperf, uint64_t *mperf); > > 2. Userland > sysctl dev.cpu.N.aperf_mperf that returns two UQUAD values. > > But I am not sure where to pu

Re: aperf/mperf

2010-11-19 Thread Andriy Gapon
I am thinking about providing two APIs for this. 1. KPI void cpu_get_a_m_perf(u_int cpu, uint64_t *aperf, uint64_t *mperf); 2. Userland sysctl dev.cpu.N.aperf_mperf that returns two UQUAD values. But I am not sure where to put the code for both APIs. Adding another device under cpu seems like a

Re: aperf/mperf

2010-11-18 Thread George Neville-Neil
;>> and >>> reliable calculate average CPU performance level over some interval of time. >>> This also allows to notice things like performance boost, which is generally >>> hidden from software. >>> What would be a proper place to add code that would meas

Re: aperf/mperf

2010-11-18 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 18/11/2010 15:38 Daniel Nebdal said the following: > Just for the sake of gathering information here: > What they offer are two (64-bit, wrapping) counters; one that > increases at a constant rate, and one that increases in proportion to > the current performance of the CPU, so that

Re: aperf/mperf

2010-11-18 Thread Daniel Nebdal
;>> and >>> reliable calculate average CPU performance level over some interval of time. >>> This also allows to notice things like performance boost, which is generally >>> hidden from software. >>> What would be a proper place to add code that would meas

Re: aperf/mperf

2010-11-18 Thread Andriy Gapon
erval of time. >> This also allows to notice things like performance boost, which is generally >> hidden from software. >> What would be a proper place to add code that would measure APERF/MPERF >> ratio? >> When should trigger such a measurement and over what interval?

Re: aperf/mperf

2010-11-17 Thread George Neville-Neil
is generally > hidden from software. > What would be a proper place to add code that would measure APERF/MPERF ratio? > When should trigger such a measurement and over what interval? > Ideas? Can you point me at documentation for this? This sounds a lot like hwpmc(4) and I wonder if we can

aperf/mperf

2010-11-16 Thread Andriy Gapon
that would measure APERF/MPERF ratio? When should trigger such a measurement and over what interval? Ideas? Thanks a lot! -- Andriy Gapon ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe