> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 04:22:09PM +, Liang, Kan wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >
> > > So if I take all except 11,13,16,17 but instead do something like
> > > the below, everything will work just fine, right?
> > >
> > > Or am I missing something?
> > >
> >
> > Yes, it should work. Then LBR
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 04:22:09PM +, Liang, Kan wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> > So if I take all except 11,13,16,17 but instead do something like the below,
> > everything will work just fine, right?
> >
> > Or am I missing something?
> >
>
> Yes, it should work. Then LBR callstack will rely on
>>
>
> So if I take all except 11,13,16,17 but instead do something like the below,
> everything will work just fine, right?
>
> Or am I missing something?
>
Yes, it should work. Then LBR callstack will rely on user to enable it.
But user never get the LBR callstack data if it's available.
So if I take all except 11,13,16,17 but instead do something like the
below, everything will work just fine, right?
Or am I missing something?
---
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.h |8
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_lbr.c |8
So if I take all except 11,13,16,17 but instead do something like the
below, everything will work just fine, right?
Or am I missing something?
---
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.h |8
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_lbr.c |8
So if I take all except 11,13,16,17 but instead do something like the below,
everything will work just fine, right?
Or am I missing something?
Yes, it should work. Then LBR callstack will rely on user to enable it.
But user never get the LBR callstack data if it's available.
I'm
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 04:22:09PM +, Liang, Kan wrote:
So if I take all except 11,13,16,17 but instead do something like the below,
everything will work just fine, right?
Or am I missing something?
Yes, it should work. Then LBR callstack will rely on user to enable it.
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 04:22:09PM +, Liang, Kan wrote:
So if I take all except 11,13,16,17 but instead do something like
the below, everything will work just fine, right?
Or am I missing something?
Yes, it should work. Then LBR callstack will rely on user to
For many profiling tasks we need the callgraph. For example we often
need to see the caller of a lock or the caller of a memcpy or other
library function to actually tune the program. Frame pointer unwinding
is efficient and works well. But frame pointers are off by default on
64bit code (and on
For many profiling tasks we need the callgraph. For example we often
need to see the caller of a lock or the caller of a memcpy or other
library function to actually tune the program. Frame pointer unwinding
is efficient and works well. But frame pointers are off by default on
64bit code (and on
10 matches
Mail list logo
