On 6/7/13 5:49 PM, Andrew Davidoff wrote:
You are correct that the Ubuntu 10.04 host that doesn't seem to be recording properly is running a 2.6.32 kernel (2.6.32-47-server from Ubuntu). The invocation of perf record is the same as described for the CentOS VM (i.e. I am not using -p, and would like to not use -a, though -a is the only way I'm getting samples recorded for <command-to-trace>).
CentOS 6 has newer perf code than its kernel version suggests -- compliments of the RHEL backporting Jiri does.
I had moved to building a newer version of perf than the one that came from the Ubuntu 10.04 repo (linux-tools-common) because that one appeared ancient based on the output it was generating, and reports version as 0.0.2.PERF (though the binary is installed as /usr/bin/perf_2.6.32-47). perf record does record data with that version, but it looks like (via perf report) that it's data only for one event even when multiple are passed, and that event isn't labeled in the report, so at a glance I am not sure which it is.
If the original perf command works but newer versions do not then the compatibility wheels have fallen off somewhere along the line.
Most likely CentOS 6 works b/c of the backports. David
Anyway, for now I'm not worrying about getting this working on this particular version of Ubuntu, but I appreciate all your help. If I decide to dig further I'll start iterating through the versions you suggested and see where things get extra broken. Andy
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-perf-users" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
