Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 2 Feb 2008 16:12:36 +0530
From:      "Joseph Koshy" <joseph.koshy@gmail.com>
To:        "Alexander Motin" <mav@freebsd.org>
Cc:        freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Memory allocation performance
Message-ID:  <84dead720802020242u4a996a86oa2d045969a4bbdcd@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <47A44652.70409@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <47A25412.3010301@FreeBSD.org> <47A25A0D.2080508@elischer.org> <47A2C2A2.5040109@FreeBSD.org> <20080201185435.X88034@fledge.watson.org> <47A37E14.7050801@FreeBSD.org> <84dead720802020209n49c09664p3962fa08f2f9a57c@mail.gmail.com> <47A44652.70409@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Thanks, I have already found this. There was only problem, that by
> default it counts cycles only when both logical cores are active while
> one of my cores was halted.

Did you try the 'active' event modifier: "p4-global-power-events,active=any"?

> Sampling on this, profiler shown results close to usual profiling, but
> looking more random:

Adding '-fno-omit-frame-pointer' to CFLAGS may help hwpmc to capture
callchains better.

Regards,
Koshy



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?84dead720802020242u4a996a86oa2d045969a4bbdcd>