Hi folks,
Hapy Holidays. In regards to this subject, I sent a message asking if
we could standardize the PLM levels to actually mean something. In
this way, we don't have to change code for every processor depending
on the PLM mapping. In my private code, I have already changed MIPS
to work in accordance with the others, thus allowing the oprofile
code to work.
BTW, I have oprofile and perfmon working on i386 again with lots of
patches. Interested?
Stefane, I also have a PPC32 patch to send you. I have a system that
boots the kernel, but I can;t seem to get it to mount root because
the damn installation uses LVM and MD. No matter what I do, I can't
get it load the ramdisk with the modules for LVM. Any suggestions?
On Jan 3, 2007, at 1:00 PM, William Cohen wrote:
One of the concerns about the measurement being produced by perfmon2
is that they are correct (or close enough for government work:). Given
the variety of events that the performance monitoring hardware
measures just getting events that provide verifiable counts for
user-space only can be a challenge. The testing framework has events
for various processors that can be counted in some repeatable manner.
I looking at testing the privilege level mask filtering for user- and
kernel-space. The test code doesn't know what code is running in the
kernel. Thus, trying to do repeatable counts is not going to be
possible. Thinking through what possible failure modes there could be
for the user/kernel space event filtering:
-Count perfmon event when not suppose to
-Not count perfmon event when suppose to
The number of events is not known and could vary because of the kernel
code. One thought is to compare multiple measurement on a run to see
that the values are consistent and sane:
* user-space only count <= user+kernel+space count
* kernel-space only count <= user+kernel+space count
* no-space count == 0
These experiments should be run twice: one set with an event that is
only triggered in the user-space (e.g. FP op counting) and a second
set an event that occurs both in kernel and user space.
Any thoughts or comments about testing this area of perfmon?
-Will
_______________________________________________
perfmon mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.hpl.hp.com/hosted/linux/mail-archives/perfmon/
_______________________________________________
perfmon mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.hpl.hp.com/hosted/linux/mail-archives/perfmon/
