On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 06:25:01PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> The patch adds a new field to the perf_mmap_page buffer header (delta_base).
> It is necessary to correctly scale the count. This new value represents the
> counter value when the event was last scheduled in. It cannot be substrac
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 16:12 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 15:55 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> >> What's the point of CPU_ONLINE vs. CPU_STARTING if yo
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 18:25 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> This patch fixes the remapped counter support such that it now works
>> on X86 processors.
>
> (could you please not add all this whitespace in front? and make sur
On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 18:25 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> This patch fixes the remapped counter support such that it now works
> on X86 processors.
(could you please not add all this whitespace in front? and make sure
it's no wider than 70 chars)
Also, I wouldn't say it fixes
This patch fixes the remapped counter support such that it now works
on X86 processors.
There were several issues:
- needed a way to allow (permission) user level read (via RDPMC on x86)
- there was no way of scaling the count correctly
- values ret
On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 16:12 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 15:55 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> What's the point of CPU_ONLINE vs. CPU_STARTING if you're saying the
> >> former is never right? Why not move CPU_
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 15:55 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> What's the point of CPU_ONLINE vs. CPU_STARTING if you're saying the
>> former is never right? Why not move CPU_ONLINE to the right place and
>> drop CPU_STARTING?
>
> Its right f
On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 15:55 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> What's the point of CPU_ONLINE vs. CPU_STARTING if you're saying the
> former is never right? Why not move CPU_ONLINE to the right place and
> drop CPU_STARTING?
Its right for a lot of things, just not for perf, we need to be ready
and d
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 01:33 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Peter Zijlstra
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 10:40 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> >> On AMD processors, we need to allocate a d
On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 01:33 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 10:40 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> On AMD processors, we need to allocate a data structure per
> >> Northbridge
> >> to handle certain
On 17.03.10 16:20:49, Xu Liu wrote:
> So Barcelona doesn't support dispatched op mode. From which version
> of processors, it supports this mode?
This mode is supported beginning with family 10h, RevC (model 4 and
above). It is available in Shanghai, Istanbul, Magny-Cours.
-Robert
--
Advanced M
Hi Marc and Vince,
On-demand dynamic linking might be a possible reason. The on-demand dynamic
linking code that loads the data for the unresolved symbols after counting
starts will contribute to the counts.
Please try to make your executable statically linked, run it again, and see the
result
12 matches
Mail list logo
