On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:59:04PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote: > Hi Andi, > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Andi Kleen <a...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > >> So we build tables of all models in the architecture, and choose > >> matching one when compiling perf, right? Can't we do that when > >> building the tables? IOW, why don't we check the VFM and discard > >> non-matching tables? Those non-matching tables are also needed? > > > > We build it for all cpus in an architecture, not all architectures. > > So e.g. for an x86 binary power is not included, and vice versa. > > OK. > > > It always includes all CPUs for a given architecture, so it's possible > > to use the perf binary on other systems than just the one it was > > build on. > > So it selects one at run-time not build-time, good. But I worry about > the size of the intel tables. How large are they? Maybe we can make > it dynamic-loadable if needed..
just compiled Sukadev's new version with Andi's events list and stripped binary size is: [jolsa@krava perf]$ ls -l perf -rwxrwxr-x 1 jolsa jolsa 2772640 May 28 13:49 perf while perf on Arnaldo's perf/core is: [jolsa@krava perf]$ ls -l perf -rwxrwxr-x 1 jolsa jolsa 2334816 May 28 13:49 perf seems not that bad jirka _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
