On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
wrote:
> Em Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 10:12:12AM -0700, Stephane Eranian escreveu:
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
>> wrote:
>> > Em Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:25:44PM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
>> >> On Thu, Sep 03,
Em Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 10:12:12AM -0700, Stephane Eranian escreveu:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> wrote:
> > Em Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:25:44PM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> >> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 05:16:41AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Sep 3,
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
wrote:
> Em Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:25:44PM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
>> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 05:16:41AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>> > > yes, but for 'count' not 'aggr'
>
>> >
Em Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:25:44PM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 05:16:41AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > yes, but for 'count' not 'aggr'
> > Ah, yes, sorry, has to be count and not aggr. Sent the wrong version.
>
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 05:16:41AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 05:05:32AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 04:48:52AM -0700,
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 05:05:32AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 04:48:52AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 05:05:32AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 04:48:52AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0200,
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 04:48:52AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> >
>> > SNIP
>> >
>> >> + /*
>> >> + * we do
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 04:48:52AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> >> + /*
> >> + * we do not consider an event that has not run as a good
> >> +
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
>> + /*
>> + * we do not consider an event that has not run as a good
>> + * instance to mark a package as used (skip=1). Otherwise
>> + * we may run
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 01:26:57PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > Per-pkg events need to be captured once per processor
> > socket. The code in check_per_pkg() ensures only one
> > value per processor package is used. However there
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
SNIP
> + /*
> + * we do not consider an event that has not run as a good
> + * instance to mark a package as used (skip=1). Otherwise
> + * we may run into a situation where the first CPU in a package
> + *
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
wrote:
> Em Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:25:44PM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
>> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 05:16:41AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>> > >
Em Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:25:44PM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 05:16:41AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > yes, but for 'count' not 'aggr'
> > Ah, yes, sorry, has to be count and not aggr. Sent
Em Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 10:12:12AM -0700, Stephane Eranian escreveu:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> wrote:
> > Em Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:25:44PM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> >> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 05:16:41AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> >
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
wrote:
> Em Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 10:12:12AM -0700, Stephane Eranian escreveu:
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
>> wrote:
>> > Em Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:25:44PM +0200, Jiri Olsa
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
SNIP
> + /*
> + * we do not consider an event that has not run as a good
> + * instance to mark a package as used (skip=1). Otherwise
> + * we may run into a situation where the first CPU in a package
> + *
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 01:26:57PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > Per-pkg events need to be captured once per processor
> > socket. The code in check_per_pkg() ensures only one
> > value per processor package is used. However there
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 04:48:52AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> >> + /*
> >> + * we do not consider an event that has not run as
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 05:16:41AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 05:05:32AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Sep
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 04:48:52AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> >
>> > SNIP
>> >
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 05:05:32AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 04:48:52AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Sep
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
>> + /*
>> + * we do not consider an event that has not run as a good
>> + * instance to mark a package as used (skip=1). Otherwise
>> +
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 05:05:32AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 04:48:52AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Sep 3,
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Per-pkg events need to be captured once per processor
> socket. The code in check_per_pkg() ensures only one
> value per processor package is used. However there is
> a problem with this function in case the first CPU of
> the
Per-pkg events need to be captured once per processor
socket. The code in check_per_pkg() ensures only one
value per processor package is used. However there is
a problem with this function in case the first CPU of
the package does not measure anything for the per-pkg event,
but other CPUs do.
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Per-pkg events need to be captured once per processor
> socket. The code in check_per_pkg() ensures only one
> value per processor package is used. However there is
> a problem with this function in case the first CPU of
> the
Per-pkg events need to be captured once per processor
socket. The code in check_per_pkg() ensures only one
value per processor package is used. However there is
a problem with this function in case the first CPU of
the package does not measure anything for the per-pkg event,
but other CPUs do.
28 matches
Mail list logo