Ok I did some scripting to add these topics you requested to the Intel JSON
files,
and changed perf list to group events by them.
I'll redirect any questions on their value to you.
And I certainly hope this is the last of your "improvements" for now.
The updated event lists are available in
* Andi Kleen wrote:
> > So instead of this flat structure, there should at minimum be broad
> > categorization
> > of the various parts of the hardware they relate to: whether they relate to
> > the
> > branch predictor, memory caches, TLB caches, memory ops, offcore, decoders,
> > executio
> So instead of this flat structure, there should at minimum be broad
> categorization
> of the various parts of the hardware they relate to: whether they relate to
> the
> branch predictor, memory caches, TLB caches, memory ops, offcore, decoders,
> execution units, FPU ops, etc., etc. - so t
* Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> > 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 wrote:
> > > >> So we build tables of all models in the architecture, and choose
> > > >> matching one when
* Jiri Olsa wrote:
> 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 wrote:
> > >> So we build tables of all models in the architecture, and choose
> > >> matching one when compiling perf, right? Can't we do that
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 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? IO
Hi Andi,
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Andi Kleen 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 n
> 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
Hi Sukadev,
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 05:02:08PM -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
> From: Andi Kleen
>
> This is a modified version of an earlier patch by Andi Kleen.
>
> We expect architectures to describe the performance monitoring events
> for each CPU in a corresponding JSON file, which look
> Sure, but shouldn't we allow JSON files to be in subdirs
>
> pmu-events/arch/x86/HSX/Haswell_core.json
>
> and this could go to arbitrary levels?
I used a flat hierarchy. Should be good enough.
-Andi
--
a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
_
Andi Kleen [a...@linux.intel.com] wrote:
| > pmu-events.c depends only on JSON files relevant to the arch perf is
| > being built on and there could be several JSON files per arch. So it
| > would complicate the Makefiles.
|
| Could just use a wildcard dependency on */$(ARCH)/*.json
Sure, but sh
> pmu-events.c depends only on JSON files relevant to the arch perf is
> being built on and there could be several JSON files per arch. So it
> would complicate the Makefiles.
Could just use a wildcard dependency on */$(ARCH)/*.json
Also it would be good to move the generated file into the objec
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 08:58:22AM -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
SNIP
> |
> | there's no concetion (yet) in the new build system to trigger
> | another binery build as a dependency for object file.. I'd
> | rather do this the framework way, please check attached patch
> |
> | also currently
Jiri Olsa [jo...@redhat.com] wrote:
| On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 05:02:08PM -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
|
| SNIP
|
| > +int main(int argc, char *argv[])
| > +{
| > + int rc;
| > + int flags;
|
| SNIP
|
| > +
| > + rc = uname(&uts);
| > + if (rc < 0) {
| > + printf("%s: unam
Jiri Olsa [jo...@redhat.com] wrote:
| On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 05:02:08PM -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
|
| SNIP
|
| > ---
| > tools/perf/Build |1 +
| > tools/perf/Makefile.perf |4 +-
| > tools/perf/pmu-events/Build| 38 ++
| > tools/perf/pmu-ev
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 05:02:08PM -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
SNIP
> +int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> +{
> + int rc;
> + int flags;
SNIP
> +
> + rc = uname(&uts);
> + if (rc < 0) {
> + printf("%s: uname() failed: %s\n", argv[0], strerror(errno));
> +
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 05:02:08PM -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
SNIP
> ---
> tools/perf/Build |1 +
> tools/perf/Makefile.perf |4 +-
> tools/perf/pmu-events/Build| 38 ++
> tools/perf/pmu-events/README | 67
> tools/perf/pmu-events
From: Andi Kleen
This is a modified version of an earlier patch by Andi Kleen.
We expect architectures to describe the performance monitoring events
for each CPU in a corresponding JSON file, which look like:
[
{
"EventCode": "0x00",
"UMask": "0x01",
"Eve
18 matches
Mail list logo
