On 2017/3/14 2:35, Vince Weaver wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 04:10:37PM +0800, Tan Xiaojun wrote:
>>
>>> 2)If it is, where we will fix it more appropriate, perf_fuzzer(not set
>>> 0 or 100) or kernel(limit 1 to 99), or maybe it is the bug of
>>>
On Sat, 25 Feb 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 04:10:37PM +0800, Tan Xiaojun wrote:
>
> > 2)If it is, where we will fix it more appropriate, perf_fuzzer(not set
> > 0 or 100) or kernel(limit 1 to 99), or maybe it is the bug of
> > hardware(too many hardware interruptions)?
>
On 2017/2/25 17:51, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 04:10:37PM +0800, Tan Xiaojun wrote:
>
>> Recently I was using perf_fuzzer for testing in Hisilicon
>> D03/D05(arm64, linux-4.10-rc1).
>>
>> As we know perf_fuzzer will write a random value to procfs interface
>> of perf event(lik
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 04:10:37PM +0800, Tan Xiaojun wrote:
> Recently I was using perf_fuzzer for testing in Hisilicon
> D03/D05(arm64, linux-4.10-rc1).
>
> As we know perf_fuzzer will write a random value to procfs interface
> of perf event(like sysctl_perf_cpu_time_max_percent). The value may
Hi, Peter:
First, thank you for your approval of my last patch and fix my bad description.
And I have some questions about perf event and perf_fuzzer.
Recently I was using perf_fuzzer for testing in Hisilicon D03/D05(arm64,
linux-4.10-rc1).
As we know perf_fuzzer will write a random value to p
Commit-ID: 1572e45a924f254d9570093abde46430c3172e3d
Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/1572e45a924f254d9570093abde46430c3172e3d
Author: Tan Xiaojun
AuthorDate: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:04:39 +0800
Committer: Ingo Molnar
CommitDate: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 08:56:33 +0100
perf/core: Fix the perf_cpu_
6 matches
Mail list logo