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

From: Vince Weaver
Date: Fri Dec 21 2012 - 13:15:03 EST

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_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.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at