[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/3] xenpm: use new Cx statistics interface
On 03/05/2014 10:53 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
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.
You mean this?
+
+#define PUT_xC(what, n) do { \
+ if ( stat->nr_##what >= n && \
+ copy_to_guest_offset(stat->what, n - 1, &hw_res.what##n, 1) ) \
+ return -EFAULT; \
+ if ( hw_res.what##n ) \
+ nr_##what = n; \
+ } while ( 0 )
+#define PUT_PC(n) PUT_xC(pc, n)
This reminds me of another question I had about this patch: this
fragment appears to assume that you call it in order. In other words,
will it work as intended if your call sequence is
PUT_PC(10)
..
PUT_PC(1)
-boris
But even if the current implementation didn't allow for this, I'd
still consider it good practice to cope with the possibility.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
