| To: | "White, Joseph" <jpwhite4@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: New perfevent PMDA |
| From: | "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 26 Jun 2014 18:01:49 -0400 |
| Cc: | "pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx" <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivered-to: | pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <CFD2024F.C228%jpwhite4@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <CFD1D0CD.C138%jpwhite4@xxxxxxxxxxx> <y0mwqc32ygi.fsf@xxxxxxxx> <CFD2024F.C228%jpwhite4@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.2.2i |
Hi - > > [...] > >- The configuration file appears to hard-code the perfcounters to be > > multiplexed/available. Did you consider automatically enumerating > > all the available ones on the platform instead? > > I don't understand your question. The code checks which hardware PMUs are > available and then enumerates the available counters. The code then > enables the counters that are specified in the relevant hardware PMU > section in the configuration file. [...] To clarify, I wonder what value the configuration file brings. If we can enumerate hardware-available counters based on the lower-level library, why not represent apprx. all of them to the PMNS? - FChE |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: New perfevent PMDA, White, Joseph |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: New perfevent PMDA, White, Joseph |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: New perfevent PMDA, White, Joseph |
| Next by Thread: | Re: New perfevent PMDA, White, Joseph |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |