On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, stephane eranian wrote:
> Seems like 0x1c8 is returning something more sensible, though I
> believe it overcounts by 2x. Are you seeing this as well?
yes, though it's more like 1.75x +/- 10% (it varies run to run).
It's unfortunate because the HW_INT_RCV results are very use
Vince,
Seems like 0x1c8 is returning something more sensible, though I
believe it overcounts by 2x. Are you seeing this as well?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Vince Weaver wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010, stephane eranian wrote:
>
>> All my event table sources indicate that 0x00c8 is the correc
hi,
I am writing my own app using the libpfm 3.10 API (interface v2.x) on a
X86 system.
I setup a sampling context for the target-process to sample every 1
million insts retired. Traditionally, I should wait for the buffer
overflow message and process with the sampling buffer and then restart.
Bu
