> Ming Lei writes:
> In fact, I observed this patch can fix the same problem triggered
> by the command below:
>
> # frequency should be set as more than 4
> perf record -e cycles -F 5 noploop
>
Hi, guys!
It seems that you have already got the perf tool worked on the ARM A9
platform
Hi Dmitry,
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Dmitry Antipov
wrote:
> On 02/23/2012 04:57 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>
>> No, it doesn't work with upstream kernel now. You need to apply the
>> patches[1][2]
>> against upstream kernel to route CTIs IRQ so that OMAP4 PMU/perf can work
>> well.
>>
>> [1], ht
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Dmitry Antipov
wrote:
> On 02/28/2012 05:27 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>
>> I am sure that several guys have tried the current omap4 pmu patch
>> and make perf work well on pandaboard.
>
>
> On a freshly booted panda board which is mostly idle:
The following are all trace
On 02/28/2012 05:27 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
I am sure that several guys have tried the current omap4 pmu patch
and make perf work well on pandaboard.
On a freshly booted panda board which is mostly idle:
root@linaro-developer:~# uptime
14:44:36 up 1 min, 3 users, load average: 0.17, 0.11, 0.05
On 02/28/2012 05:27 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
OK, could you try the MLO and u-boot.bin under the link of
http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~ming/up to see if 'perf' may work well?
Is it really possible that the bootloader stuff affects perf/oprofile?
If still not, could you tell me what is the revision of
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Dmitry Antipov
wrote:
> On 02/28/2012 04:45 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>
>> Please try the uImage on the link below:
>>
>> http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~ming/up/uImage-3.3-rc5-perf
>>
>
> No good news for the oprofile:
OK, could you try the MLO and u-boot.bin under the
On 02/28/2012 04:45 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
Please try the uImage on the link below:
http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~ming/up/uImage-3.3-rc5-perf
No good news for the oprofile:
...
irq 34: nobody cared (try booting with the "irqpoll" option)
[stack]
Disabling IRQ #34
irq 33: nobody cared (try b
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Dmitry Antipov
wrote:
> On 02/27/2012 06:27 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>
>> After some check, I just found there is another patch you missed.
>> Please try the attachment patch from Shilimkar, Santosh.
>>
>> If it doesn't work, I can send my uImage for your test.
>
>
> N
On 02/27/2012 06:27 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
After some check, I just found there is another patch you missed.
Please try the attachment patch from Shilimkar, Santosh.
If it doesn't work, I can send my uImage for your test.
No effect, so please send an uImage if possible.
I'm re-sending cumulativ
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Dmitry Antipov
wrote:
> On 02/25/2012 07:24 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>
>> BTW: suggest you to apply the recent arm pmu irq fix patches[1] to
>> test 'oprofile'.
>>
>> [1], http://marc.info/?t=13300128495&r=1&w=2
>
>
> I tried, and with the same results - "nobody car
On 02/25/2012 07:24 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
BTW: suggest you to apply the recent arm pmu irq fix patches[1] to
test 'oprofile'.
[1], http://marc.info/?t=13300128495&r=1&w=2
I tried, and with the same results - "nobody cared" messages
about IRQs 33 and 34.
Dmitry
___
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Dmitry Antipov
wrote:
> On 02/24/2012 01:44 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>
>> Could you share us how you reproduced the problem? and which
>> kernel are you used to reproduce it?
>
>
> The kernel is Linus' tree (bb4c7e9a9908548b458f34afb2fee74dc0d49f90),
> .config is attach
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Dmitry Antipov
wrote:
> On 02/23/2012 04:57 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>
>> No, it doesn't work with upstream kernel now. You need to apply the
>> patches[1][2]
>> against upstream kernel to route CTIs IRQ so that OMAP4 PMU/perf can work
>> well.
>>
>> [1], http://marc.in
On 02/23/2012 04:57 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
No, it doesn't work with upstream kernel now. You need to apply the
patches[1][2]
against upstream kernel to route CTIs IRQ so that OMAP4 PMU/perf can work well.
[1], http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=132686049213313&w=2
[2], http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Dmitry Antipov
wrote:
> On 02/22/2012 05:59 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
>
>> However, the way that the performance counter interrupts are routed is
>> dependent on the SoC. OMAP4 and later have an unusual way of doing this,
>> which is why perf doesn't currently work
Hi Dmitry,
On 02/22/2012 07:17 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 06:41:22PM +0400, Dmitry Antipov wrote:
On 02/22/2012 05:59 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
However, the way that the performance counter interrupts are routed is
dependent on the SoC. OMAP4 and later have an unusual way of
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 06:41:22PM +0400, Dmitry Antipov wrote:
> On 02/22/2012 05:59 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
>
> >However, the way that the performance counter interrupts are routed is
> >dependent on the SoC. OMAP4 and later have an unusual way of doing this,
> >which is why perf doesn't current
On 02/22/2012 05:59 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
However, the way that the performance counter interrupts are routed is
dependent on the SoC. OMAP4 and later have an unusual way of doing this,
which is why perf doesn't currently work upstream for these platforms.
But will it work on Panda board wit
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 08:14:11PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Dmitry Antipov
> wrote:
> > On 02/22/2012 02:57 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> >
> >> I didn't use oprofile before and always use 'perf', and I am sure
> >> it works well with arm a9 pmu hardware on linus tree.
> >
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 02:15:09PM +0400, Dmitry Antipov wrote:
> Hello Ming,
>
> could you please give some pointers to observe an overall status of
> oprofile support on ARM A9 cores? IIUC, now it doesn't work
Note -- it's important to understand that there's a difference
between oprofile/perf
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Dmitry Antipov
wrote:
> On 02/22/2012 02:57 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>
>> I didn't use oprofile before and always use 'perf', and I am sure
>> it works well with arm a9 pmu hardware on linus tree.
>
>
> Should we consider oprofile as obsolete in favor of perf?
>
> Are t
On 02/22/2012 02:57 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
I didn't use oprofile before and always use 'perf', and I am sure
it works well with arm a9 pmu hardware on linus tree.
Should we consider oprofile as obsolete in favor of perf?
Are these projects competing to be a default system profiling
tool for Linu
Hi Dmitry,
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Dmitry Antipov
wrote:
> Hello Ming,
>
> could you please give some pointers to observe an overall status of
> oprofile support on ARM A9 cores? IIUC, now it doesn't work
Wrt. perf support on ARM A9, I think the builtin PMU can work well
with mainline k
Hello Ming,
could you please give some pointers to observe an overall status of
oprofile support on ARM A9 cores? IIUC, now it doesn't work
without oprofile.timer=1 kernel option, at least for Linus' tree;
searching gives a lot of discussion/patches fragments and similar
stuff, but I was unable t
24 matches
Mail list logo
