> On Jan 7, 2016, at 12:49 AM, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>
> Thanks for tracking this down. So if I understand correctly, the problem is
> related to the default value of exclude_guest set by libpfm4
> on systems with paranoid=2. Is that correct?
Yes, although I’m not entirely sure the problem i
Hi Vince,
Yeah, I noticed that when I was stracing a working perf but nothing else worked.
Also, I spent some time actually getting together a libpfm that works with
Cray's distro perf_event.h in /usr/include/linux/perf_event.h. That required a
number of changes and eventually worked. However,
On Mon, 4 Jan 2016, Philip Mucci wrote:
> Right. The default however is currently to exclude_guest = 1, which is
> the problem. PAPI did not seem to rectify that setting…
just a further comment, I complained to the kernel people about this mess
again but there doesn't seem to be much that can b
On Mon, 4 Jan 2016, Philip Mucci wrote:
> Right. The default however is currently to exclude_guest = 1, which is
> the problem. PAPI did not seem to rectify that setting…
I am probably misremembering the fix. This problem was causing issues on
Xeon Phi/MIC and so the fix might have been locali
On Mon, 4 Jan 2016, Philip Mucci wrote:
> Greetings and Happy New Year Stephane,
> Ok, thanks to your tips, and digging through Vince’s perf_event_tests codes,
> I tracked down this bug - it’s the exclude_guest = 1 flag. The systems I’m
> running on are paranoid level 2. Here’s the GDB log… What’s
Right. The default however is currently to exclude_guest = 1, which is the
problem. PAPI did not seem to rectify that setting…
One problem I had digging around was that libpfm always includes it’s version
of the struct… When I looked at what the actual kernel wanted (it’s own
linux/perf_event.h
Greetings and Happy New Year Stephane,
Ok, thanks to your tips, and digging through Vince’s perf_event_tests codes, I
tracked down this bug - it’s the exclude_guest = 1 flag. The systems I’m
running on are paranoid level 2. Here’s the GDB log… What’s the right way to
fix this? I have a patched
Thanks! And Merry Christmas Stephane!
I have been traveling for the holidays so IOU a response to the previous
message about Intel events. I'm preparing a detailed one for you.
I will do some testing and get back to you.
Thanks
Ps Vince, I checked your perf events testers and this one didn't
Hi Phil,
On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 1:55 AM, Philip Mucci wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Does the nmi_watchdog prevent libpfm from working at all? I’m on an older
> Sandia system (compton)
>
> No, this only affects the number of events you can measure simultaneously.
> Is this a kernel version and perf a
Hi folks,
Does the nmi_watchdog prevent libpfm from working at all? I’m on an older
Sandia system (compton)
Is this a kernel version and perf attr data structure problem? It can’t be NMI
since perf with raw registers seems to work fine…
ideas? This also affected PAPI.
Phil
[pjmucci@compton1
10 matches
Mail list logo
