On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:45:02AM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>
> > So guys, if understand all things correctly it's supposed to use some
> > -1/-2 as initial @config value for unsupported events, right? Vince,
> > may not it be easier to use bit
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> So guys, if understand all things correctly it's supposed to use some
> -1/-2 as initial @config value for unsupported events, right? Vince,
> may not it be easier to use bit 19 as a flag of valid event and clear
> it when you write to msr, thus we
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 02:01:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 15:42 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>
> > Guys, letme re-read this whole mail thread first since I have no clue
> > what this remapping about ;)
>
> x86_setup_perfctr() / set_ext_hw_attr() have special
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 04:22:29PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 02:05:58PM +0200, stephane eranian wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Peter Zijlstra
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 15:42 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > >
> > >> Guys, letme re-read
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 02:05:58PM +0200, stephane eranian wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Peter Zijlstra
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 15:42 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> >
> >> Guys, letme re-read this whole mail thread first since I have no clue
> >> what this remapping about
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 15:42 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>
>> Guys, letme re-read this whole mail thread first since I have no clue
>> what this remapping about ;)
>
> x86_setup_perfctr() / set_ext_hw_attr() have special purposed 0 and -1
On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 15:42 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> Guys, letme re-read this whole mail thread first since I have no clue
> what this remapping about ;)
x86_setup_perfctr() / set_ext_hw_attr() have special purposed 0 and -1
config values to mean -ENOENT and -EINVAL resp.
This means
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 03:42:25PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 01:32:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-09-20 at 13:03 -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
> > > One additional complication: some of the cache events map to
> > > event "0". This causes problems
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 01:32:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-09-20 at 13:03 -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
> > One additional complication: some of the cache events map to
> > event "0". This causes problems because the generic events code
> > assumes "0" means not-available. I'm
On Thu, 2012-09-20 at 13:03 -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
> One additional complication: some of the cache events map to
> event "0". This causes problems because the generic events code
> assumes "0" means not-available. I'm not sure the best way to address
> that problem.
For all except P4 we
On Thu, 2012-09-20 at 13:03 -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
One additional complication: some of the cache events map to
event 0. This causes problems because the generic events code
assumes 0 means not-available. I'm not sure the best way to address
that problem.
For all except P4 we could
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 01:32:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2012-09-20 at 13:03 -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
One additional complication: some of the cache events map to
event 0. This causes problems because the generic events code
assumes 0 means not-available. I'm not sure
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 03:42:25PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 01:32:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2012-09-20 at 13:03 -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
One additional complication: some of the cache events map to
event 0. This causes problems because the
On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 15:42 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
Guys, letme re-read this whole mail thread first since I have no clue
what this remapping about ;)
x86_setup_perfctr() / set_ext_hw_attr() have special purposed 0 and -1
config values to mean -ENOENT and -EINVAL resp.
This means
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl wrote:
On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 15:42 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
Guys, letme re-read this whole mail thread first since I have no clue
what this remapping about ;)
x86_setup_perfctr() / set_ext_hw_attr() have special
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 02:05:58PM +0200, stephane eranian wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl
wrote:
On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 15:42 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
Guys, letme re-read this whole mail thread first since I have no clue
what this
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 04:22:29PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 02:05:58PM +0200, stephane eranian wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl
wrote:
On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 15:42 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
Guys, letme
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 02:01:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 15:42 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
Guys, letme re-read this whole mail thread first since I have no clue
what this remapping about ;)
x86_setup_perfctr() / set_ext_hw_attr() have special purposed 0 and
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
So guys, if understand all things correctly it's supposed to use some
-1/-2 as initial @config value for unsupported events, right? Vince,
may not it be easier to use bit 19 as a flag of valid event and clear
it when you write to msr, thus we will
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:45:02AM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
So guys, if understand all things correctly it's supposed to use some
-1/-2 as initial @config value for unsupported events, right? Vince,
may not it be easier to use bit 19 as a
:03 AM
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Peter Zijlstra; Paul Mackerras; Ingo Molnar; Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo;
eran...@gmail.com; Meadows, Lawrence F
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] perf, Add support for Xeon-Phi PMU
Hello
Included below is a patch that adds perf support for the Xeon-Phi PMU
:03 AM
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Peter Zijlstra; Paul Mackerras; Ingo Molnar; Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo;
eran...@gmail.com; Meadows, Lawrence F
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] perf, Add support for Xeon-Phi PMU
Hello
Included below is a patch that adds perf support for the Xeon-Phi PMU
Hello
Included below is a patch that adds perf support for the Xeon-Phi PMU,
as documented in the "Intel Xeon Phi Coprocessor (codename: Knights
Corner) Performance Monitoring Units" manual.
Even though it is a co-processor, a Phi runs a full Linux environment
and can support performance
Hello
Included below is a patch that adds perf support for the Xeon-Phi PMU,
as documented in the Intel Xeon Phi Coprocessor (codename: Knights
Corner) Performance Monitoring Units manual.
Even though it is a co-processor, a Phi runs a full Linux environment
and can support performance
24 matches
Mail list logo
