On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 04:05:30PM +0100, Vince Weaver wrote: > On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 10:24:34PM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote: > > > > > > So something like they have on ARM? > > > > > > vince@pandaboard:/sys/bus/event_source/devices$ ls -l > > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Jul 8 21:57 ARMv7 Cortex-A9 -> > > > ../../../devices/ARMv7 Cortex-A9 > > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Jul 8 21:57 breakpoint -> > > > ../../../devices/breakpoint > > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Jul 8 21:57 software -> > > > ../../../devices/software > > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Jul 8 21:57 tracepoint -> > > > ../../../devices/tracepoint > > > > Right so what I remember of the ARM case is that their /proc/cpuinfo isn't > > sufficient to identify their PMU. And they don't have a cpuid like > > instruction > > at all. > > libpfm4 uses the > CPU part : 0xc09 > line in /proc/cpuinfo on ARM, and that's enough for the processors PAPI > supports (Cortex A8/A9/A15 plus the 1176 on the raspberry-pi). I'm > guessing it wouldn't be enough if we wanted to support *all* ARMs with > PMUs.
The CPU part you cite is actually A9-specific, so you probably want to probe each CPU specifically. Take a look at the cpuinfo parsing in OProfile (used by operf). > And speaking of ARM, I should be railing at them for breaking the ABI too, > with their (understandable yet still ABI breaking) decision to remove > BogoMIPS from /proc/cpuinfo. That change will impact PAPI as well as > various other programs I maintain that have the misfortune of parsing that > file. Really? Why are you checking for that line at all? Will _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
