Em Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 03:05:44PM +0100, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:34:26AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > It _is_ supported by the kernel, and by the hardware, its just that it
> > is not supported in system wide mode, that BTW, in the case above, the
> > u
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:34:26AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> It _is_ supported by the kernel, and by the hardware, its just that it
> is not supported in system wide mode, that BTW, in the case above, the
> user doesn't even asked for (-a wasn't in the command line).
Well, that warn
Em Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:20:28PM +0100, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:04:51PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > could you please test this change?
>
> LGTM, thanks!
Only one remark about a misleading warning, that is not a warning, is an
error, as its mere presence prevents w
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:04:51PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> could you please test this change?
LGTM, thanks!
$ ./perf stat -v -e amd_nb/event=0xe0,umask=0x1f/ sleep 1
Using CPUID AuthenticAMD-21-2
amd_nb/event=0xe0,umask=0x1f/: 249356 1002053637 1002053637
Performance counter stats for 'system
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 08:54:37AM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 11:47:16PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 06:22:54PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Well, this one should be read (and written in the tool output as):
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 11:47:16PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 06:22:54PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Well, this one should be read (and written in the tool output as):
> >
> >
>
> Do you want to change that CNTR_NOT_SUPPORTED string unconditionally to
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 06:22:54PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Well, this one should be read (and written in the tool output as):
>
>
Do you want to change that CNTR_NOT_SUPPORTED string unconditionally to
something like above?
Because perf_evsel.supported seems like it means that
Em Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 09:31:49PM +0100, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
> Btw, I received your mail just now - probably greylisting...
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:44:33AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Isn't this confusing, i.e. people runnin 'tool workload' can be lead to
> > think tha
Btw, I received your mail just now - probably greylisting...
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:44:33AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Isn't this confusing, i.e. people runnin 'tool workload' can be lead to
> think that the events reported took place just when the workload was
> running, i.e. on
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 06:52:25PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 06:48:13PM +0100, Boris Petkov wrote:
> > LGTM.
> >
> > Acked-by: me
>
> Well, it looks good but actually trying it is a different story. For
> example:
>
> $ ./perf stat -e amd_nb/event=0xe0,umask=0x1f/ s
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 06:48:13PM +0100, Boris Petkov wrote:
> LGTM.
>
> Acked-by: me
Well, it looks good but actually trying it is a different story. For
example:
$ ./perf stat -e amd_nb/event=0xe0,umask=0x1f/ sleep 1
still says because argc is not 0.
So how about the below diff instead?
$
On February 17, 2017 6:00:34 PM GMT+01:00, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>---
>Boris asked for default -a option in case we monitor
>only uncore events. While implementing that I thought
>it might be actually useful to make it overall default.
>
>Running 'perf stat' will now collect system wide data.
>
>Reques
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:41:28AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 03:33:27PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:27:47AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Em Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 03:00:57PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> > > > Boris a
13 matches
Mail list logo
