[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1212211305300.13284@pianoman.cluster.toy>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 13:07:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Corey Ashford <cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] perf tool: Add non arch events for SandyBridge
microarchitecture
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> BR_MISP_EXEC.ALL_BRANCHES,event=0x89,umask=0xff
> BR_MISP_EXEC.COND,event=0x89,umask=0x1
> BR_MISP_EXEC.DIRECT_NEAR_CALL,event=0x89,umask=0x10
> BR_MISP_EXEC.INDIRECT_JMP_NON_CALL_RET,event=0x89,umask=0x4
> BR_MISP_EXEC.INDIRECT_NEAR_CALL,event=0x89,umask=0x20
> BR_MISP_EXEC.NONTAKEN,event=0x89,umask=0x40
> BR_MISP_EXEC.RETURN_NEAR,event=0x89,umask=0x8
> BR_MISP_EXEC.TAKEN,event=0x89,umask=0x80
>
I hate to sound like a broken record here, but, again, what's the
rationalization for not using libpfm4 here?
Is it simply NIH or is there some sort of technical reason? It seems a
lot of wasted effort to create all these tables one chip at a time when
libpfm4 already has well-tested and debugged event tables for most CPUs
with perf_event support.
Vince
--
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