From: Jason Y. <jas...@am...> - 2007-03-10 15:14:27
Attachments:
OPROFILE_Greyhound.patch
Kernel_Module_Oprofile.patch
|
Hi, In this email, I included one patches for Oprofile to include events and other modifications (OPROFILE_Greyhound.patch) for AMD Greyhound (Barcelona) patch also also for illustration purpose the kernel patch (Kernel_Module_Oprofile.patch) to go along with the other patch. Let me know if there's any comments or suggestion. Jason |
From: William C. <wc...@re...> - 2007-03-20 15:27:44
|
Jason Yeh wrote: > Hi, > > In this email, I included one patches for Oprofile to include events and > other modifications (OPROFILE_Greyhound.patch) for AMD Greyhound > (Barcelona) patch also also for illustration purpose the kernel patch > (Kernel_Module_Oprofile.patch) to go along with the other patch. > > Let me know if there's any comments or suggestion. > > Jason Hi Jason, When I applied the patch. I got: patch: **** malformed patch at line 473: diff -uprN -X dontdiff oprofile-cvs/oprofile-0.9.2/events/x86-64/greyhound/events oprofile-family10/oprofile-0.9.2/events/x86-64/greyhound/events This is due to count for the preceding patch for libop/op_events.c being off. It should be: --- oprofile-cvs/libop/op_events.c 2007-03-10 08:39:59.000000000 -0600 +++ oprofile-family10/libop/op_events.c 2007-03-09 16:35:56.000000000 -0600 @@ -751,5 +751,6 @@ void op_default_event(op_cpu cpu_type, s With that fixed the patch applied. Is "family10" really what it is going to be called? It would be better if it could be some name that is used in the documentation. > diff -uprN -X dontdiff oprofile-cvs/events/x86-64/family10/events oprofile-family10/events/x86-64/family10/events > --- oprofile-cvs/events/x86-64/family10/events 1969-12-31 18:00:00.000000000 -0600 > +++ oprofile-family10/events/x86-64/family10/events 2007-03-09 16:37:39.000000000 -0600 > @@ -0,0 +1,122 @@ > +# > +# Hammer events Is "family10" a "Hammer"? This should be changed. There are difference between the file. > +# > +# Copyright OProfile authors > +# > +# Copyright (c) Advanced Micro Devices, 2006. 2006, 2007? > diff -uprN -X dontdiff oprofile-cvs/events/x86-64/family10/unit_masks oprofile-family10/events/x86-64/family10/unit_masks > --- oprofile-cvs/events/x86-64/family10/unit_masks 1969-12-31 18:00:00.000000000 -0600 > +++ oprofile-family10/events/x86-64/family10/unit_masks 2007-03-09 16:37:39.000000000 -0600 > @@ -0,0 +1,299 @@ > +# > +# Hammer unit masks Name. > +# > +# Copyright OProfile authors > +# Copyright (c) Advanced Micro Devices, 2006. 2007? > diff -uprN -X dontdiff oprofile-cvs/oprofile-0.9.2/events/x86-64/greyhound/events oprofile-family10/oprofile-0.9.2/events/x86-64/greyhound/events > --- oprofile-cvs/oprofile-0.9.2/events/x86-64/greyhound/events 1969-12-31 18:00:00.000000000 -0600 > +++ oprofile-family10/oprofile-0.9.2/events/x86-64/greyhound/events 2007-03-09 16:37:59.000000000 -0600 > diff -uprN -X dontdiff oprofile-cvs/oprofile-0.9.2/events/x86-64/greyhound/unit_masks oprofile-family10/oprofile-0.9.2/events/x86-64/greyhound/unit_masks > --- oprofile-cvs/oprofile-0.9.2/events/x86-64/greyhound/unit_masks 1969-12-31 18:00:00.000000000 -0600 > +++ oprofile-family10/oprofile-0.9.2/events/x86-64/greyhound/unit_masks 2007-03-09 16:37:59.000000000 -0600 Are greyhound and family10 the same? oprofile-cvs/oprofile-0.9.2/events/x86-64/greyhound/events and unit_mask junk left over? -Will |
From: Jason Y. <jas...@am...> - 2007-03-20 15:42:28
Attachments:
OPROFILE_Family10.patch
|
Will, Thanks for your help. The previous patch was made against the CVS code that might have caused the patch not applying cleanly. I attached a cleaned up version of the patch diffed against 0.9.2. The attached patch also contains consistent use of the name Family10 as the name of the CPU to avoid confusion. Greyhound is one of the cpu from the family 10, there will be other variant CPU with different names, but all having the same performance events. Jason William Cohen wrote: > Jason Yeh wrote: >> Hi, >> >> In this email, I included one patches for Oprofile to include events >> and other modifications (OPROFILE_Greyhound.patch) for AMD Greyhound >> (Barcelona) patch also also for illustration purpose the kernel patch >> (Kernel_Module_Oprofile.patch) to go along with the other patch. >> >> Let me know if there's any comments or suggestion. >> >> Jason > > Hi Jason, > > When I applied the patch. I got: > > patch: **** malformed patch at line 473: diff -uprN -X dontdiff > oprofile-cvs/oprofile-0.9.2/events/x86-64/greyhound/events > oprofile-family10/oprofile-0.9.2/events/x86-64/greyhound/events > > This is due to count for the preceding patch for libop/op_events.c > being off. It should be: > > --- oprofile-cvs/libop/op_events.c 2007-03-10 08:39:59.000000000 -0600 > +++ oprofile-family10/libop/op_events.c 2007-03-09 > 16:35:56.000000000 -0600 > @@ -751,5 +751,6 @@ void op_default_event(op_cpu cpu_type, s > > With that fixed the patch applied. > > Is "family10" really what it is going to be called? It would be better > if it could be some name that is used in the documentation. > > >> diff -uprN -X dontdiff oprofile-cvs/events/x86-64/family10/events >> oprofile-family10/events/x86-64/family10/events >> --- oprofile-cvs/events/x86-64/family10/events 1969-12-31 >> 18:00:00.000000000 -0600 >> +++ oprofile-family10/events/x86-64/family10/events 2007-03-09 >> 16:37:39.000000000 -0600 >> @@ -0,0 +1,122 @@ >> +# >> +# Hammer events > > Is "family10" a "Hammer"? This should be changed. There are difference > between the file. > >> +# >> +# Copyright OProfile authors >> +# >> +# Copyright (c) Advanced Micro Devices, 2006. > > 2006, 2007? > > >> diff -uprN -X dontdiff oprofile-cvs/events/x86-64/family10/unit_masks >> oprofile-family10/events/x86-64/family10/unit_masks >> --- oprofile-cvs/events/x86-64/family10/unit_masks 1969-12-31 >> 18:00:00.000000000 -0600 >> +++ oprofile-family10/events/x86-64/family10/unit_masks 2007-03-09 >> 16:37:39.000000000 -0600 >> @@ -0,0 +1,299 @@ >> +# >> +# Hammer unit masks > > Name. > >> +# >> +# Copyright OProfile authors >> +# Copyright (c) Advanced Micro Devices, 2006. > > 2007? > > >> diff -uprN -X dontdiff >> oprofile-cvs/oprofile-0.9.2/events/x86-64/greyhound/events >> oprofile-family10/oprofile-0.9.2/events/x86-64/greyhound/events >> --- oprofile-cvs/oprofile-0.9.2/events/x86-64/greyhound/events >> 1969-12-31 18:00:00.000000000 -0600 >> +++ >> oprofile-family10/oprofile-0.9.2/events/x86-64/greyhound/events >> 2007-03-09 16:37:59.000000000 -0600 > > >> diff -uprN -X dontdiff >> oprofile-cvs/oprofile-0.9.2/events/x86-64/greyhound/unit_masks >> oprofile-family10/oprofile-0.9.2/events/x86-64/greyhound/unit_masks >> --- oprofile-cvs/oprofile-0.9.2/events/x86-64/greyhound/unit_masks >> 1969-12-31 18:00:00.000000000 -0600 >> +++ >> oprofile-family10/oprofile-0.9.2/events/x86-64/greyhound/unit_masks >> 2007-03-09 16:37:59.000000000 -0600 > > Are greyhound and family10 the same? > oprofile-cvs/oprofile-0.9.2/events/x86-64/greyhound/events and > unit_mask junk left over? > > -Will > > |
From: William C. <wc...@re...> - 2007-03-20 17:09:45
|
Jason Yeh wrote: > Will, > > Thanks for your help. > > The previous patch was made against the CVS code that might have caused > the patch not applying cleanly. I attached a cleaned up version of the > patch diffed against 0.9.2. The attached patch also contains consistent > use of the name Family10 as the name of the CPU to avoid confusion. > Greyhound is one of the cpu from the family 10, there will be other > variant CPU with different names, but all having the same performance > events. > > Jason Hi Jason, Did you check that everything compiles when the patch is applied to the clean oprofile snapshot? Looks like the patch missed ophelp.c: ophelp.c: In function ‘main’: ophelp.c:384: warning: enumeration value ‘CPU_FAMILY10’ not handled in switch make[2]: *** [ophelp.o] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/wcohen/research/profiling/oprofile/oprofile-k10/utils' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/wcohen/research/profiling/oprofile/oprofile-k10' make: *** [all] Error 2 -Will |
From: Jason Y. <jas...@am...> - 2007-03-20 18:13:41
Attachments:
OPROFILE_Family10.patch
|
William Cohen wrote: > Jason Yeh wrote: >> Will, >> >> Thanks for your help. >> >> The previous patch was made against the CVS code that might have=20 >> caused the patch not applying cleanly. I attached a cleaned up=20 >> version of the patch diffed against 0.9.2. The attached patch also=20 >> contains consistent use of the name Family10 as the name of the CPU=20 >> to avoid confusion. Greyhound is one of the cpu from the family 10,=20 >> there will be other variant CPU with different names, but all having=20 >> the same performance events. >> >> Jason > > Hi Jason, > > Did you check that everything compiles when the patch is applied to=20 > the clean oprofile snapshot? Looks like the patch missed ophelp.c: > > ophelp.c: In function =91main=92: > ophelp.c:384: warning: enumeration value =91CPU_FAMILY10=92 not handled= in=20 > switch > make[2]: *** [ophelp.o] Error 1 > make[2]: Leaving directory=20 > `/home/wcohen/research/profiling/oprofile/oprofile-k10/utils' > make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 > make[1]: Leaving directory=20 > `/home/wcohen/research/profiling/oprofile/oprofile-k10' > make: *** [all] Error 2 > > -Will > Will, I missed this particular switch statement when I was making the=20 modification, and the compiler did not emit warning. I appended the=20 ophelp diff at the end of the patch. Jason |
From: Jason Y. <jas...@am...> - 2007-03-21 14:03:55
Attachments:
OPROFILE_Family10v2.patch
|
Upon farther testing, I found a unit mask with invalid masks. The=20 attached patch includes correction to the error. Jason William Cohen wrote: > Jason Yeh wrote: >> Will, >> >> Thanks for your help. >> >> The previous patch was made against the CVS code that might have=20 >> caused the patch not applying cleanly. I attached a cleaned up=20 >> version of the patch diffed against 0.9.2. The attached patch also=20 >> contains consistent use of the name Family10 as the name of the CPU=20 >> to avoid confusion. Greyhound is one of the cpu from the family 10,=20 >> there will be other variant CPU with different names, but all having=20 >> the same performance events. >> >> Jason > > Hi Jason, > > Did you check that everything compiles when the patch is applied to=20 > the clean oprofile snapshot? Looks like the patch missed ophelp.c: > > ophelp.c: In function =91main=92: > ophelp.c:384: warning: enumeration value =91CPU_FAMILY10=92 not handled= in=20 > switch > make[2]: *** [ophelp.o] Error 1 > make[2]: Leaving directory=20 > `/home/wcohen/research/profiling/oprofile/oprofile-k10/utils' > make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 > make[1]: Leaving directory=20 > `/home/wcohen/research/profiling/oprofile/oprofile-k10' > make: *** [all] Error 2 > > -Will > > |
From: William C. <wc...@re...> - 2007-03-21 15:47:26
|
Jason Yeh wrote: > Upon farther testing, I found a unit mask with invalid masks. The > attached patch includes correction to the error. > > Jason Hi Jason, The patch is looking okay. So x86-64/family10 is what the processor is going to be identified as? That "family10" isn't the most graceful name. That isn't going to change in the future is it? I have been able to build an Fedora development OProfile RPM with the revised OPROFILE_Family10v.patch. Are there any other changes or corrects that need to be made in the patch? Or should it be put in the oprofile cvs? -Will |
From: Jason Y. <jas...@am...> - 2007-03-21 18:56:33
|
William Cohen wrote: > Jason Yeh wrote: >> Upon farther testing, I found a unit mask with invalid masks. The >> attached patch includes correction to the error. >> >> Jason > > Hi Jason, > > The patch is looking okay. So x86-64/family10 is what the processor is > going to be identified as? That "family10" isn't the most graceful > name. That isn't going to change in the future is it? > > I have been able to build an Fedora development OProfile RPM with the > revised OPROFILE_Family10v.patch. > > Are there any other changes or corrects that need to be made in the > patch? Or should it be put in the oprofile cvs? > > -Will > > As far as I know, the processor will be identified as "family10" and won't be changed in the future. I don't believe there will any more change needed in the patch and can be put in the CVS. Thanks. Jason |
From: William C. <wc...@re...> - 2007-03-23 17:53:58
|
Jason Yeh wrote: > William Cohen wrote: >> Jason Yeh wrote: >>> Upon farther testing, I found a unit mask with invalid masks. The >>> attached patch includes correction to the error. >>> >>> Jason >> >> Hi Jason, >> >> The patch is looking okay. So x86-64/family10 is what the processor is >> going to be identified as? That "family10" isn't the most graceful >> name. That isn't going to change in the future is it? >> >> I have been able to build an Fedora development OProfile RPM with the >> revised OPROFILE_Family10v.patch. >> >> Are there any other changes or corrects that need to be made in the >> patch? Or should it be put in the oprofile cvs? >> >> -Will >> >> > As far as I know, the processor will be identified as "family10" and > won't be changed in the future. I don't believe there will any more > change needed in the patch and can be put in the CVS. Thanks. > > Jason > Okay, if no one objects I can check this in today. -Will |