Will, On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 03:50:02PM -0500, William Cohen wrote: > Stephane Eranian wrote: > > > >You need an updated perfmon2 kernel patch to make this work. The kernel > >patch is relative to my 061204 kernel perfmon patch and Linux git: > > > > ftp://ftp.hpl.hp.com/pub/linux-ia64/perfmon2-oprof-070122.diff > > > >Let me know what if it works for you. > > > > --- oprofile-perfmon2/utils/opcontrol.orig 2007-01-22 > 13:23:33.000000000 -0500 > +++ oprofile-perfmon2/utils/opcontrol 2007-01-22 14:24:10.000000000 -0500 > @@ -298,6 +298,14 @@ > do_init_daemon_vars > decide_oprofile_device > > + OP_IMPLEMENTATION_DIR=$MOUNT/implementation > + if test -f $OP_IMPLEMENTATION; then > > Shouldn't this be $OP_IMPLEMENTATION_DIR? Shouldn't the name be > OP_IMPLEMENTATION_FILE rather than _DIR? > > + OP_IMPLEMENTATION=`cat $OP_IMPLEMENTATION_DIR` > + else > + OP_IMPLEMENTATION="unspecified" > + fi > + > + Yes. I fixed that now.
> > The unused parameter ?pid? in opd_perfmon_22:do_load_context is flagged. I > worked around this with the following in o9pd_perfmon_22.c: > > int do_load_context(int fd, pid_t pid __attribute__ ((unused)), size_t cpu) > I fixed that with the __attribute__() above. > Similarly put a #if 0... #endif around get_unavail_counters_p6() in > opd_perfmon_22.c > I removed this code, it is not needed. > Was the patch tested to be backward compatible with older kernels? I tried > the with the rawhide kernel and it seemed to be trying to use the perfmon > support even though it wasn't available in this kernel. > No, it was not because I do not have a machine running without perfmon. I would certainly appreciate some help in this. -- -Stephane _______________________________________________ perfmon mailing list [email protected] http://www.hpl.hp.com/hosted/linux/mail-archives/perfmon/
