* Jiri Olsa <jo...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:59:04PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote: > > Hi Andi, > > > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Andi Kleen <a...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > >> So we build tables of all models in the architecture, and choose > > >> matching one when compiling perf, right? Can't we do that when > > >> building the tables? IOW, why don't we check the VFM and discard > > >> non-matching tables? Those non-matching tables are also needed? > > > > > > We build it for all cpus in an architecture, not all architectures. > > > So e.g. for an x86 binary power is not included, and vice versa. > > > > OK. > > > > > It always includes all CPUs for a given architecture, so it's possible > > > to use the perf binary on other systems than just the one it was > > > build on. > > > > So it selects one at run-time not build-time, good. But I worry about > > the size of the intel tables. How large are they? Maybe we can make > > it dynamic-loadable if needed.. > > just compiled Sukadev's new version with Andi's events list > and stripped binary size is: > > [jolsa@krava perf]$ ls -l perf > -rwxrwxr-x 1 jolsa jolsa 2772640 May 28 13:49 perf > > > while perf on Arnaldo's perf/core is: > > [jolsa@krava perf]$ ls -l perf > -rwxrwxr-x 1 jolsa jolsa 2334816 May 28 13:49 perf > > seems not that bad
It's not bad at all. Do you have a Git tree URI where I could take a look at its current state? A tree would be nice that has as many of these patches integrated as possible. Thanks, Ingo _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev