[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170619191330.GC13640@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:13:30 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: Jin Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...radead.org,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ak@...ux.intel.com, kan.liang@...el.com, yao.jin@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] perf report: Implement visual marker for macro
fusion in annotate
Em Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 02:35:29PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> Em Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:55:58AM +0800, Jin Yao escreveu:
>
> Marker always there, not just when we have the cursor on top of one of
> those lines remains to be coded.
>
> But you state:
>
> ------------
> Macro fusion merges two instructions to a single micro-op. Intel core
> platform performs this hardware optimization under limited
> circumstances.
> ------------
>
> "Intel core", what about older arches, etc, don't you have to look at:
>
> # cpudesc : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-5600U CPU @ 2.60GHz
> # cpuid : GenuineIntel,6,61,4
>
> present in the perf.data header (or in the running system, for things
> like 'perf top') to make sure that this is a machine where such "macro
> fusion" takes place?
Ok, I have the patches that need this discussion to get to a conclusion
on a separate patch, tmp.perf/annotate, the first patch, the one that
returns the 'struct arch' for the browser to use arch specific stuff is
in perf/core and can go to Ingo now.
- Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists