Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/3] xenpm: use new Cx statistics interface

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 05.03.14 at 16:47, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 03/05/2014 05:37 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> @@ -331,7 +346,7 @@ void pxstat_func(int argc, char *argv[])
>>   }
>>   
>>   static uint64_t usec_start, usec_end;
>> -static struct xc_cx_stat *cxstat, *cxstat_start, *cxstat_end;
>> +static struct xc_cx_stat_v2 *cxstat, *cxstat_start, *cxstat_end;
>>   static struct xc_px_stat *pxstat, *pxstat_start, *pxstat_end;
>>   static int *avgfreq;
>>   static uint64_t *sum, *sum_cx, *sum_px;
>> @@ -482,25 +497,26 @@ static void signal_int_handler(int signo
>>               /* print out CC? and PC? */
>>               for ( i = 0; i < socket_nr; i++ )
>>               {
>> +                unsigned int n;
>>                   uint64_t res;
>> +
>>                   for ( j = 0; j <= info.max_cpu_index; j++ )
>>                   {
>>                       if ( cpu_to_socket[j] == socket_ids[i] )
>>                           break;
>>                   }
>>                   printf("\nSocket %d\n", socket_ids[i]);
>> -                res = cxstat_end[j].pc2 - cxstat_start[j].pc2;
>> -                printf("\tPC2\t%"PRIu64" ms\t%.2f%%\n",  res / 1000000UL,
>> -                       100UL * res / (double)sum_cx[j]);
>> -                res = cxstat_end[j].pc3 - cxstat_start[j].pc3;
>> -                printf("\tPC3\t%"PRIu64" ms\t%.2f%%\n",  res / 1000000UL,
>> -                       100UL * res / (double)sum_cx[j]);
>> -                res = cxstat_end[j].pc6 - cxstat_start[j].pc6;
>> -                printf("\tPC6\t%"PRIu64" ms\t%.2f%%\n",  res / 1000000UL,
>> -                       100UL * res / (double)sum_cx[j]);
>> -                res = cxstat_end[j].pc7 - cxstat_start[j].pc7;
>> -                printf("\tPC7\t%"PRIu64" ms\t%.2f%%\n",  res / 1000000UL,
>> -                       100UL * res / (double)sum_cx[j]);
>> +                for ( n = 0; n < MAX_PKG_RESIDENCIES; ++n )
>> +                {
>> +                    if ( n >= cxstat_end[j].nr_pc )
>> +                        continue;
>> +                    res = cxstat_end[j].pc[n];
>> +                    if ( n < cxstat_start[j].nr_pc )
>> +                        res -= cxstat_start[j].pc[n];
> 
> Is it possible to have  cxstat_end[j].nr_pc != cxstat_start[j].nr_pc ?

Yes - see the previous patch: It bumps the count only if the
respective hw_res field was non-zero.

But even if the current implementation didn't allow for this, I'd
still consider it good practice to cope with the possibility.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel