I will resubmit a patch on Monday. Same thing for AMD NB events.
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 00:08 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> I think there is a problem with this following code:
>>
>> void hw_perf_enable(void)
>> for (i =
On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 00:08 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> I think there is a problem with this following code:
>
> void hw_perf_enable(void)
> for (i = 0; i < cpuc->n_events; i++) {
>
> event = cpuc->event_list[i];
> hwc = &event-
I think there is a problem with this following code:
void hw_perf_enable(void)
for (i = 0; i < cpuc->n_events; i++) {
event = cpuc->event_list[i];
hwc = &event->hw;
if (hwc->idx == -1 || hwc->idx == cpuc->ass
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 18:48 +0100, stephane eranian wrote:
>> So we have to modify hw_perf_enable() to first disable all events
>> which are moving,
>> then reprogram them. I suspect it may be possible to optimize this if
>> we detect that
>
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 18:48 +0100, stephane eranian wrote:
> >> It seems a solution would be to call x86_pmu_disable() before
> >> assigning an event to a new counter for all events which are
> >> moving. This is because we cannot assume all events have been
> >> previously disabled individually.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 18:12 +0100, stephane eranian wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 17:39 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> >> @@ -1395,40 +1430,28 @@ void hw_perf_enable(void)
>>
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 18:12 +0100, stephane eranian wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 17:39 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> @@ -1395,40 +1430,28 @@ void hw_perf_enable(void)
> >> * apply assignment obtained either from
>
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 17:39 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> @@ -1395,40 +1430,28 @@ void hw_perf_enable(void)
>> * apply assignment obtained either from
>> * hw_perf_group_sched_in() or x86_pmu_enable()
>>
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 21:27 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 17:39 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > @@ -1395,40 +1430,28 @@ void hw_perf_enable(void)
> > * apply assignment obtained either from
> > * hw_perf_group_sched_in() or x86_pmu_enable(
On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 17:39 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> @@ -1395,40 +1430,28 @@ void hw_perf_enable(void)
> * apply assignment obtained either from
> * hw_perf_group_sched_in() or x86_pmu_enable()
> *
> -* step1: save events mo
10 matches
Mail list logo
