
CoreFreq – CPU monitoring for 64-bit processors - netmonk
https://github.com/cyring/CoreFreq
======
brendangregg
Seems ok. We do have many tools in this space: turbostat, i7z, tiptop, perf
stat, pcm, pmu-tools, etc. So I kinda wish these tool authors would solve the
missing metrics rather than reinventing existing ones. Many tools that kinda
do the same thing is a problem in tech - it costs us time to dig through them.

I've said it before in talks, but if you want to write a new tool in this
space, please write bustop - top for system busses.

(I'd also rather this tool didn't use a kernel module, of course, and I still
don't understand why it needs to).

------
wmf
That GIF makes me wonder. It's showing different threads of a single core at
different frequencies which is impossible. And didn't Nehalem run all the
cores at the same frequency as well? Perhaps that effect is caused by sampling
error or it's measuring something other than the actual ratio.

~~~
Andys
It represents an average, of clocks per sample. For example when in the C3 to
C6 states, the clock is stopped so would be effectively zero during those tiny
periods.

------
atomt
For Intel processors, on Linux, the "turbostat" utility provides much of the
same information using the -d switch.

~~~
anoother
As does cpufreq-aperf (some of the same stats, at least)

------
gigatexal
i'm sure it's been vetted but i don't feel all that great loading a module
into my kernel just to check on my cpu metrics, although the IPC numbers are
rather cool.

------
gens
Why does it need a kernel module ?

~~~
m82labs
I was wondering the same. No way I would load a module just to monitor CPU.

~~~
floatboth
FreeBSD already comes with cpuctl.ko which is used by Intel's pcm.x tools. No
way Linux doesn't have something similar…

~~~
mmrezaie
Linux has MSR module or one can use perf.

------
xylon
it tested it, it works fine

