[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100915203948.GB28455@lenovo>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 00:39:48 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc: Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
"fweisbec@...il.com" <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"ying.huang@...el.com" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
"ming.m.lin@...el.com" <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
"yinghai@...nel.org" <yinghai@...nel.org>,
"andi@...stfloor.org" <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf, x86: catch spurious interrupts after disabling
counters
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:21:10PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> When you do perf record foo, it's equivalent to
> perf record -e cycles:uk -F 1000 foo
>
yup, thanks
> I think there is a problem with perf record in case you provide
> multiple events. It is going to sample on all of them at the same
> frequency. You may not always want that, but I don't think there
> is a way to change that.
>
indeed, without perf-tool code changes but i think you still may run
multiple instances of perf-tool :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists