On Thu, 2017-04-06 at 16:03 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Alistair Popple <alist...@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 <alist...@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.
