Will, On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 02:47:09PM -0500, William Cohen wrote: > Stephane Eranian wrote: > > > >On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 08:19:57AM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote: > >>I got OProfile to work on perfmon v2.3 all IA-64 and X86. I need to > >>clean the user level code a little bit. I would appreciate if you could > >>take a look at it. > >> > > > >I have made available a first draft of the OProfile patch to make it > >work on top of perfmon2 on X86 and IA-64 hardware. The current patch > >does not take into account unavailable counters. > > > >The patch includes part of your initial oprofile-perfmon2 patch. I have > >now split opd_perfmon.c into 3 different files: > > > > - opd_perfmon.c : common perfmon2 front-end > > - opd_perfmon_22.c: all arch, perfmon v2.3 support > > - opd_perfmon_compat.c: IA-64 only, perfmon v2.0 compatibility > > > >The daemon auto-detects which code to use based on the perfmon version. > > > >To enable perfmon support, you need to run configure with the > >--enable-perfmon2 > >option. There is no options to opcontrol, no event table has been modified. > > > >The patch is relative to the oprofile-0.9.2.tar.gz release. You can grab > >it at: > > ftp://ftp.hpl.hp.com/pub/linux-ia64/oprofile-perfmon2-070622.tar.gz > > > >You need an updated perfmon2 kernel patch to make this work. The kernel > >patch is relative to my 061204 kernel perfmon patch and Linux git: > > > > ftp://ftp.hpl.hp.com/pub/linux-ia64/perfmon2-oprof-070122.diff > > > >Let me know what if it works for you. > > > > Hi Stephane, > > The link for the oprofile user-space patch is: > > ftp://ftp.hpl.hp.com/pub/linux-ia64/oprof-perfmon2-070122.diff > > I am looking through the oprofile user-space patch. It would probably be > wiser to make the patch apply to the oprofile cvs repository. > Yes, I will try to do this.
> -The oprofile cvs repository doesn't have Makefile.in, but the changes will > need to be placed in the configure.in and Makefile.am files. The patch > shouldn't be touching Makefile.in. > I think the changes are already in those files. > Did the patch mean to remove oprofile-0.9.2/doc/oprofile.1? > No, I don't know how it disappeared. > Did the patched code compile with -Wall? When building I see: > > gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -I ../libabi -I ../libutil -I ../libop -I > ../libdb -DOPROF_PERFMON2 -W -Wall -fno-common > -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Werror -fno-omit-frame-pointer -g -O2 -MT > opd_perfmon_22.o -MD -MP -MF .deps/opd_perfmon_22.Tpo -c -o > opd_perfmon_22.o opd_perfmon_22.c > cc1: warnings being treated as errors > opd_perfmon_22.c: In function ?do_load_context?: > opd_perfmon_22.c:649: warning: unused parameter ?pid? > It compiled for me with the warning (no -Wall), hard to remove it given that I am using the same function name for both v2.0 and v2.3. -- -Stephane _______________________________________________ perfmon mailing list [email protected] http://www.hpl.hp.com/hosted/linux/mail-archives/perfmon/
