Re: [PATCH 3/3] perf tool: Add non arch events for SandyBridgemicroarchitecture

[Vince Weaver]

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012, Jiri Olsa wrote:

> BR_MISP_EXEC.ALL_BRANCHES,event=0x89,umask=0xff
> BR_MISP_EXEC.COND,event=0x89,umask=0x1
> BR_MISP_EXEC.DIRECT_NEAR_CALL,event=0x89,umask=0x10
> BR_MISP_EXEC.INDIRECT_JMP_NON_CALL_RET,event=0x89,umask=0x4
> BR_MISP_EXEC.INDIRECT_NEAR_CALL,event=0x89,umask=0x20
> BR_MISP_EXEC.NONTAKEN,event=0x89,umask=0x40
> BR_MISP_EXEC.RETURN_NEAR,event=0x89,umask=0x8
> BR_MISP_EXEC.TAKEN,event=0x89,umask=0x80
> 

I hate to sound like a broken record here, but, again, what's the 
rationalization for not using libpfm4 here?

Is it simply NIH or is there some sort of technical reason?  It seems a 
lot of wasted effort to create all these tables one chip at a time when 
libpfm4 already has well-tested and debugged event tables for most CPUs 
with perf_event support.

Vince
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/