On Thu, 20 Dec 2012, Jiri Olsa wrote: > BR_MISP_EXEC.ALL_BRANCHES,event=0x89,umask=0xff > BR_MISP_EXEC.COND,event=0x89,umask=0x1 > BR_MISP_EXEC.DIRECT_NEAR_CALL,event=0x89,umask=0x10 > BR_MISP_EXEC.INDIRECT_JMP_NON_CALL_RET,event=0x89,umask=0x4 > BR_MISP_EXEC.INDIRECT_NEAR_CALL,event=0x89,umask=0x20 > BR_MISP_EXEC.NONTAKEN,event=0x89,umask=0x40 > BR_MISP_EXEC.RETURN_NEAR,event=0x89,umask=0x8 > BR_MISP_EXEC.TAKEN,event=0x89,umask=0x80 >
I hate to sound like a broken record here, but, again, what's the rationalization for not using libpfm4 here? Is it simply NIH or is there some sort of technical reason? It seems a lot of wasted effort to create all these tables one chip at a time when libpfm4 already has well-tested and debugged event tables for most CPUs with perf_event support. Vince -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
