[libvirt] [PATCH 0/4] Add generic perf event support

[John Ferlan]

On 12/14/2016 08:54 AM, Nitesh Konkar wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:12 AM, John Ferlan <jferlan at redhat.com
> <mailto:jferlan at redhat.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     On 12/13/2016 11:01 AM, Nitesh Konkar wrote:
>     > Add support and documentation for generic
>     > perf events like bus_cycles, stalled_cycles_frontend,
>     > stalled_cycles_backend and ref_cpu_cycles.
>     >
>     > Nitesh Konkar (4):
>     >   perf: add bus_cycles perf event support
>     >   perf: add stalled_cycles_frontend perf event support
>     >   perf: add stalled_cycles_backend perf event support
>     >   perf: add ref_cpu_cycles perf event support
>     >
>     >  docs/formatdomain.html.in <http://formatdomain.html.in>                 
>      | 24 +++++++++++++++++
>     >  docs/news.html.in <http://news.html.in>                           |  6 +++--
>     >  docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng               |  4 +++
>     >  include/libvirt/libvirt-domain.h            | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>     >  src/libvirt-domain.c                        | 11 ++++++++
>     >  src/qemu/qemu_driver.c                      |  4 +++
>     >  src/util/virperf.c                          | 16 +++++++++++-
>     >  src/util/virperf.h                          |  4 +++
>     >  tests/genericxml2xmlindata/generic-perf.xml |  4 +++
>     >  tools/virsh.pod                             | 16 +++++++++++-
>     >  10 files changed, 125 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>     >
> 
>     As long as you're OK with my word-smithing in patches 2 & 3 regarding a
>     longer description for those cycles values... Then these are fine and I
>     can push them once I get the OK. 
> 
> Makes sense. I m OK with it. Thanks!
> 
>     If you can provide a better explanation
>     for ref_cpu_cycles that would be fantastic.
> 
> 
> Based on the below two links:
> http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1112.1/01029.html
> http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/perf_event_open.2.html
> 
> I have come up with the following two explanations.
> 
> The count of total cpu cycles not affected by CPU frequency
> scaling  by applications running on the platform
> 
> OR
> 
> The count of the number of reference core cpu cycles
> by applications running on the platform
> 
> 

OK - I went with the former and pushed the series

John