On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 03:03:43PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 12:23:20PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 12:30:32PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 08/04/2016 06:29 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 02:30:46PM +
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 12:23:20PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 12:30:32PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 08/04/2016 06:29 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 02:30:46PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> > [SNIP]
> > >
> > > sorry for late response
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 12:30:32PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 08/04/2016 06:29 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 02:30:46PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> [SNIP]
> >
> > sorry for late response..
> >
> > I checked on f22 kernel and it's missing the core2 PEBs fix:
>
On 08/04/2016 06:29 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 02:30:46PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
[SNIP]
>
> sorry for late response..
>
> I checked on f22 kernel and it's missing the core2 PEBs fix:
> 1424a09a9e18 perf/x86: fix PEBS issues on Intel Atom/Core2
>
> which was introdu
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 02:30:46PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 07/20/2016 05:38 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 04:34:17PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 04:28:34PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> Running perf version 4.4.14
On 07/20/2016 05:38 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 04:34:17PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 04:28:34PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Running perf version 4.4.14.g0cb188d (no modification to the PMU/perf
>>> code) I observed that "perf top" c
On 07/20/2016 05:34 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 04:28:34PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Running perf version 4.4.14.g0cb188d (no modification to the PMU/perf
>> code) I observed that "perf top" counts no cycles and produces no
>> output. After a bit of head scr
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 04:34:17PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 04:28:34PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Running perf version 4.4.14.g0cb188d (no modification to the PMU/perf
> > code) I observed that "perf top" counts no cycles and produces no
> > output. A
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 04:28:34PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Running perf version 4.4.14.g0cb188d (no modification to the PMU/perf
> code) I observed that "perf top" counts no cycles and produces no
> output. After a bit of head scratching and testing I figured that
> running "per
Hello,
Running perf version 4.4.14.g0cb188d (no modification to the PMU/perf
code) I observed that "perf top" counts no cycles and produces no
output. After a bit of head scratching and testing I figured that
running "perf top -e cycles" actually works whereas the default option
is equivalent to r
10 matches
Mail list logo