[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150327121052.GD23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 13:10:52 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] perf/x86: filter branches for PEBS event
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:40:14PM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> You are addressing one of the problems of this routine. But I think
> there is a more serious issue which is not addressed here. The
> intel_shared_regs_constraints() assumes that the associated event is
> necessarily unconstrained:
>
> __intel_shared_reg_get_constraints()
> {
> struct event_constraint *c = &emptyconstraint;
> ...
> }
emptyconstraint != unconstrained.
Note how that function only returns emptyconstraint if its rejecting the
event, otherwise it returns NULL such that we continue calling
x86_get_event_constraint().
> This is true for offcore_response, but for LBR this may not always be the case.
> I may want to use LBR on the L1D_PEND_MISS event and it would need to
> be on counter 2.
> But I believe that the current code could place it on counter 0 simply
> because you return if shared_reg_get_constraint() is successful, but
> it looks only at the LBR constraint not the event constraint. I think
> in the presence of LBR, you always need to call share_get_reg() and
> x86_get_event_constraint().
Which, I think it does.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists