To reply to my own e-mail, the following patch makes perfmon report the
expected values for long-running programs on my niagara machine.
I have no idea if doing things this way is safe.
Vince
--- arch/sparc64/perfmon/perfmon.c.orig 2008-08-15 12:23:33.000000000 -0400
+++ arch/sparc64/perfmon/perfmon.c 2008-08-15 13:45:40.000000000 -0400
@@ -113,7 +113,7 @@
i, (unsigned long long)new_val,
(new_val&wmask) ? 1 : 0);
- if (new_val & wmask) {
+ if (new_val == 0) {
__set_bit(i, set->povfl_pmds);
set->npend_ovfls++;
}
@@ -317,7 +317,7 @@
}
static struct pfm_pmu_config pmu_sparc64_pmu_conf = {
- .counter_width = 31,
+ .counter_width = 32,
.pmd_desc = pfm_sparc64_pmd_desc,
.num_pmd_entries = 2,
.pmc_desc = pfm_sparc64_pmc_desc,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
perfmon2-devel mailing list
perfmon2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/perfmon2-devel
