HI Stefane, Couldn't all this be solved by having opcontrol/ophelp use the pfmlib event tables directory and ignoring everything in the events directory of oprofile?
Phil On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 02:42 -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 01:17:40PM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote: > > This little exercise raised a few questions: > > > > - the code that uses the v2.3 interface (for all architectures) now relies > > on libpfm. You pass to pfm_dispatch_events() OProfile event names. So > > that assumes that OProfile and libpfm events match. I am not sure this > > is the case for all events on all x86 processors. We need to solve this. > > > > After taking a closer look, I came to the conclusion that we cannot use > libpfm to do the event assignment. There are several complictaed issues > related to: > 1/ Event names > > OProfile and libpfm may not use the same exact name for the same > event. > Finding an event in libpfm is based upon string matching. > > 2/ Handling of unit masks > > In OProfile unit masks are provide using an hexadecimal bitmask. > In libpfm, they are provided using a string. > > Reconciling both of those would require a lot of work. > > An alternative is to let OProfile manage names and unit masks and have > the daemon simply manage the mapping of OProfile counter indexes to > perfmon counter indexes. Such mapping is trivial for many processors. > It is more difficult for the P4. This approach is fairly similar to what > we have today for OProfile on IA-64. > > -- > -Stephane > _______________________________________________ > 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/
