On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:30:29AM +0100, Jan Glauber wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 11:50:10PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 01:55:29PM +0200, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > > +/* node attribute depending on number of NUMA nodes */
> > > +static ssize_t node_show(struct device
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:30:29AM +0100, Jan Glauber wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 11:50:10PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 01:55:29PM +0200, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > > +/* node attribute depending on number of NUMA nodes */
> > > +static ssize_t node_show(struct device
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:39:21AM +0100, Jan Glauber wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> thanks for reviewing. One question below,
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 04:54:06PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 01:55:29PM +0200, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > > +#include
> > > +#include
> > >
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:39:21AM +0100, Jan Glauber wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> thanks for reviewing. One question below,
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 04:54:06PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 01:55:29PM +0200, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > > +#include
> > > +#include
> > >
Hi Will,
thanks for the review!
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 11:50:10PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> Thanks for posting an updated series. I have a few minor comments, which
> we can hopefully address in time for 4.10.
>
> Also, have you run the perf fuzzer with this series applied?
No,
Hi Will,
thanks for the review!
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 11:50:10PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> Thanks for posting an updated series. I have a few minor comments, which
> we can hopefully address in time for 4.10.
>
> Also, have you run the perf fuzzer with this series applied?
No,
Hi Mark,
thanks for reviewing. One question below, for most of your other comments
I think we need to come to a conclusion about the aggregation first.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 04:54:06PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> Apologies for the delay in getting to this.
>
> On Sat, Oct 29,
Hi Mark,
thanks for reviewing. One question below, for most of your other comments
I think we need to come to a conclusion about the aggregation first.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 04:54:06PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> Apologies for the delay in getting to this.
>
> On Sat, Oct 29,
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 04:54:06PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * Some notes about the various counters supported by this "uncore" PMU
> > + * and the design:
> > + *
> > + * All counters are 64 bit long.
> > + * There are no overflow interrupts.
> > + * Counters are summarized per
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 04:54:06PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * Some notes about the various counters supported by this "uncore" PMU
> > + * and the design:
> > + *
> > + * All counters are 64 bit long.
> > + * There are no overflow interrupts.
> > + * Counters are summarized per
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 04:54:06PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 01:55:29PM +0200, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/perf/uncore/uncore_cavium.c
> > b/drivers/perf/uncore/uncore_cavium.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000..a7b4277
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 04:54:06PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 01:55:29PM +0200, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/perf/uncore/uncore_cavium.c
> > b/drivers/perf/uncore/uncore_cavium.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000..a7b4277
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++
Hi Jan,
Apologies for the delay in getting to this.
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 01:55:29PM +0200, Jan Glauber wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/perf/uncore/uncore_cavium.c
> b/drivers/perf/uncore/uncore_cavium.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000..a7b4277
> --- /dev/null
> +++
Hi Jan,
Apologies for the delay in getting to this.
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 01:55:29PM +0200, Jan Glauber wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/perf/uncore/uncore_cavium.c
> b/drivers/perf/uncore/uncore_cavium.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000..a7b4277
> --- /dev/null
> +++
Hi Jan,
Thanks for posting an updated series. I have a few minor comments, which
we can hopefully address in time for 4.10.
Also, have you run the perf fuzzer with this series applied?
https://github.com/deater/perf_event_tests
(build the tests and look under the fuzzer/ directory for the
Hi Jan,
Thanks for posting an updated series. I have a few minor comments, which
we can hopefully address in time for 4.10.
Also, have you run the perf fuzzer with this series applied?
https://github.com/deater/perf_event_tests
(build the tests and look under the fuzzer/ directory for the
Provide "uncore" facilities for different non-CPU performance
counter units.
The uncore PMUs can be found under /sys/bus/event_source/devices.
All counters are exported via sysfs in the corresponding events
files under the PMU directory so the perf tool can list the event names.
There are some
Provide "uncore" facilities for different non-CPU performance
counter units.
The uncore PMUs can be found under /sys/bus/event_source/devices.
All counters are exported via sysfs in the corresponding events
files under the PMU directory so the perf tool can list the event names.
There are some
18 matches
Mail list logo
