From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761543AbZFKIoL (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:44:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760635AbZFKInx (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:43:53 -0400 Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.21]:19426 "EHLO orsmga101.jf.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761442AbZFKInv (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:43:51 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,201,1243839600"; d="scan'208";a="420783875" Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:27:10 +0800 From: Yong Wang To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] perf_counter/x86: Correct some event and umask values for Intel processors Message-ID: <20090611082710.GA29784@ywang-moblin2.bj.intel.com> References: <20090609131553.GA12489@ywang-moblin2.bj.intel.com> <20090609141621.GA32703@elte.hu> <20090610053623.GC30923@ywang-moblin2.bj.intel.com> <20090610104242.GB27724@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090610104242.GB27724@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > Btw, one thing I don't quite understand is why you aliased > > dtlb-write-ops to l1d-write-ops when setting event and umask > > values. Are they the same event? > > No, they are indeed different events - that's a bug in the table, > good spotting. Mind sending a (tested) patch for it? > I'm a little confused. By dtlb-write-ops, do you want to count the number of times that DTLB is accessed due to store operations or the number of times that DTLB entries are written to, i.e. updated? Btw, do you know whether virtual cache is employed or not on atom/core2/nehalem so that tlb won't be accessed when accessing l1 caches? -Yong