From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755028AbcGZLax (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jul 2016 07:30:53 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com ([74.125.82.51]:36094 "EHLO mail-wm0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753708AbcGZLav (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jul 2016 07:30:51 -0400 Subject: Re: Strange behavior of perf top with PEBS To: Jiri Olsa , Nikolay Borisov References: <578F7C82.6090500@kyup.com> <20160720143417.GA25992@krava> <20160720143842.GB25992@krava> Cc: Peter Zijlstra , "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" , andi@firstfloor.org From: Nikolay Borisov Message-ID: <579749E6.1030408@kyup.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 14:30:46 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160720143842.GB25992@krava> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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" 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 running "perf top -e cycles:p". So the latter version >>> seems to not work on my machine. >> >> hum, I think Core2 has PEBs valid only for instructions not cycles.. >> >> I'll check why perf top forcing the precise for cycles >> I thought we had that automated already > > oops, too soon ;) we have: > > perf/x86/intel: Fix Core2,Atom,NHM,WSM cycles:pp events > commit 517e6341fa123ec3a2f9ea78ad547be910529881 > Author: Peter Zijlstra > Date: Sat Apr 11 12:16:22 2015 +0200 > > > so i guess it should work.. checking ;-) Any update on that? > > jirka >