On Fri, 3 May 2013, Dan Terpstra wrote:
> > My "hack" was only for the uncore, the regular Ivybridge events have been
> > supported properly for some time.
>
> Yeah but the regular Ivy events don't include FP_COMP_OPS_EXE
> and SIMD_FP_256.
well, for the obvious reasons that Intel doesn't suppo
On Fri, 3 May 2013, Dan Terpstra wrote:
> Since you've already hacked libpfm4 to make IVB58 look like SNB42, could
> you check to see if the IVB deprecated floating point events actually
> work? That's FP_COMP_OPS_EXE and SIMD_FP_256, which were removed from
> the tables, but (rumor has it) not
So I am using my hacked version of libpfm4 that is detecting the
model 58 IVB uncore as the same as model 42 SNB.
I have a few questions about libpfm4 uncore support.
For one, it looks like 4 different CBOXes are being created
[76, snb_unc_cbo0, "Intel Sandy Bridge C-box0 uncore"]
ince Weaver wrote:
>
>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:30:52 -0500
>> From: Vince Weaver
>> To: perfmon2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> Subject: [perfmon2] Ivy Bridge Uncore support
>>
>>
>> Intel Vol 3b says that Ivy Bridge support is more or less the same as
>> S
ubject: [perfmon2] Ivy Bridge Uncore support
>
>
> Intel Vol 3b says that Ivy Bridge support is more or less the same as
> Sandy Bridge.
>
> The below patch just detects IvyBridge as a SandyBridge uncore. It seems
> to work.
>
> Is this the kind of fix you want? Or would you
Intel Vol 3b says that Ivy Bridge support is more or less the same as
Sandy Bridge.
The below patch just detects IvyBridge as a SandyBridge uncore. It seems
to work.
Is this the kind of fix you want? Or would you prefer the SandyBridge
table to be copied over as a specific IvyBridge file?
Sig
