Re: [Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH] Xenoprof passive domain support fixes

["Ray Bryant" <raybry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wednesday 12 July 2006 21:42, Santos, Jose Renato G wrote:
<snip>
>
> Ray,
>
> I did not notice at the first time that you were using option -x on
> opreport. According to opreport man page this option should not be
> used in you did not run opcontrol with --separate option. I am not sure
> what the behavior would be in this case, but that is what may be causing
> the kernel samples to be ommited. Try running opreport without the -x
> option.
>

I've tried it all ways with and w/o --separate=kernel, with and w/o -x.
No pvmlinux1 samples.  :-(

Anyway, there aren't any pvmlinux1 samples in the oprofiled.log either,
so this is a problem upstream of the opreport (i. e. either in oprofiled or in 
the kernel code that sets the mode, etc.)

I'm losing a ton of samples someplace:  opreport has just shy of 1,000,000
samples accounted for, and the experiment ran for 120 seconds on a 3.00 GHZ
Pentium D, so that should be around 3.6 million samples.   According to a
"grep Sample oprofiled.log | wc" oprofiled saw around 3.4 million samples, so 
that is not too far off.   (The experiment is a kernel compile, repeated over 
and over, so the guest cpu should be busy all the time.)

> Thanks for porting the patch to oprofile 0.9.1. I am fixing a few things
> and plan to post a new version for 0.9.1 in a few days.
>

Cool.  I was just trying to help Markus out.

> Renato
>


-- 
Ray Bryant
AMD Performance Labs                   Austin, Tx
512-602-0038 (o)                 512-507-7807 (c)



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel