On Wednesday 23 August 2006 14:14, Stephane Eranian wrote:
[adding [email protected] so that possibly AMD people can comment]
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:22:44PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > > I have a second thought on this. AMD has architected the performance counters.
> >
> > Quote:
> > >>
> > Implementations are not required to support the performance
> > c o u n t e rs and the event-select registers, or the time-stamp
> > counter. The presence of these features can be determined by
> > <<
> >
> At the end of this paragraph then mention using CPUID to determine
> the presence of the counters. AFAIK, there is no feature bit
> covering performance monitoring. Does that mean we are left
> with having to check the family and model number just like on
> Intel?
Yes I puzzled over that too. Maybe they meant the MSR CPUID bits, but most likely
it was a mistake by the tech writer.
Yes I think you have to. Only checking vendor/family should be fine though -- i am not
aware of performance counter variations between models.
Perhaps add a force argument again that disables the family check too.
> Ok, I think I understand now:
> 1/ Bios and Kernel Developer Guide from Ahtlon64 and Opteron 64 is
> what you are talking about with K7/K8
Well K8.
K7 has a different one. But ok. I think you don't try to support K7 at all
currently (it has the same register format as K8, but the list of counters
is different)
> 2/ AMD64 Architecture Programmer's Manual is the generic AMD64 description
Yep
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
