Robert, Ok, then I will apply the patch. Thanks for your explanations.
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Robert Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephane and Vince, > > > On 09.05.08 23:06:16, stephane eranian wrote: > > My main issue which this patch is that I wonder if the K7 > > support does qualify as a AMD64 PMU which is how this > > patch would implement it. > > > > Shouldn't we rather introduce an AMD_K7 PMU model > > for libpfm. We could reuse most of the code but it would > > logically be separate. > > > > Opinions? > > Unfortunately this became a little bit confusing. Although performance > monitoring is documented mainly in the AMD64 documentation and the > specifications of K8 and familiy 10h, performance counters has been > introduced with the K7. The PMUs of K7 and K8 can be treated as > compatible with the exception of newly introduced events. From that > point of view I tend to use the same PMU model as for K8. Actually we > could change from AMD64 to AMD, but this could confuse people even > more. > > So, just to use performance monitoring on K7 as on K8, it's better to > have also the same PMU model. > > -Robert > > -- > > > Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. > Operating System Research Center > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ perfmon2-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/perfmon2-devel
