Eric, On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 02:00:19PM +0200, Eric Piel wrote: > Stephane Eranian wrote: > > > > The attached patch against 2.5.67 corrects the problem. Note that this > > patch also includes other updates. > > > > Let me know how it goes. > Very good, it worked!: I glad to see that it worked for you as well this time. > > Also, after a quick glance at the patch I noticed this update: > -/* pmc8 */ { PFM_REG_CONFIG , 0, 0xffffffff3fffffffUL, > 0xffffffff9fffffffUL, NULL, pfm_mck_pmc_check, {0UL,0UL, 0UL, 0UL}, > {0UL,0UL, 0UL, 0UL}}, > -/* pmc9 */ { PFM_REG_CONFIG , 0, 0xffffffff3ffffffcUL, > 0xffffffff9fffffffUL, NULL, pfm_mck_pmc_check, {0UL,0UL, 0UL, 0UL}, > {0UL,0UL, 0UL, 0UL}}, > +/* pmc8 */ { PFM_REG_CONFIG , 0, 0xffffffff3fffffffUL, > 0xffffffff3fffffffUL, NULL, pfm_mck_pmc_check, {0UL,0UL, 0UL, 0UL}, > {0UL,0UL, 0UL, 0UL}}, > +/* pmc9 */ { PFM_REG_CONFIG , 0, 0xffffffff3ffffffcUL, > 0xffffffff3fffffffUL, NULL, pfm_mck_pmc_check, {0UL,0UL, 0UL, 0UL}, > {0UL,0UL, 0UL, 0UL}}, > > Could you describe shortly what this is suppose to fix? Recently I had > some troubles with some PMU counters on Itanium2 (hard to trigger) and I > wonder if this could be solved by that patch... > This only affects measurements made with the opcode matchers. The UIUC folks reported a problem with certain opcode pattern not being counted properly. I was off by one bit in the mask. This has no affect on measurements NOT using the opcode matchers. -- -StephaneReceived on Fri Apr 18 07:40:08 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:14 EST