x86: do not use TSC as cycle count - #88
Conversation
See seL4#87 for more detail. Signed-off-by: Bill Nguyen <bill.nguyen@unsw.edu.au>
|
I'm not quite sure on how to deal with this in the kernel though: https://github.com/seL4/seL4/blob/1326364bc9135d9445d936ebc01e38a402c1f4c6/include/arch/x86/arch/benchmark.h#L20 Changing that |
If it faults if it isn't set up properly, then it's not an option. Otherwise, the kernel can setup a sane init value at boot and use that. If PMC access is exported to user space, they can change the config later if they want. But I think we should remove all kernel benchmarking code, is it uses by anyone? Most things you can measure from user space and it's easy to filter out high measurements caused by scheduling. If no one is actively using this, then high chances this isn't working anyway for one reason or the other. |
Yes, sDDF's echo server benchmarking relies on the kernel for kernel utilisation. Or are you referring to RFC-16 on the PMU cap? |
What is it trying to measure? I would expect that the overhead caused by the kernel tracking would make any measurements done there close to useless.
No, that's unrelated. Btw, neither of the |
Per-pd user/kernel cycle counts. For kernel cycle counts, it shows whether the kernel is running on the fastpath. |
See #87 for more detail.
Test with seL4/seL4_libs#116.