[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090609142506.GD32703@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 16:25:06 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Yong Wang <yong.y.wang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] perf_counter/x86: Fix incorrect default branch
* Yong Wang <yong.y.wang@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 03:23:13PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Yong Wang <yong.y.wang@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The event selector and UMASK values of Nehalem do not apply to all
> > > Intel processors.
> >
> > The idea was to offer _some_ sort of table on new CPUs, instead of
> > nothing...
> >
> > Eventually Intel stops changing those model specific index values in
> > future CPUs and puts them into architectural perfmon, for
> > fundamental stats like L1/LLC cache statistics.
> >
> > In that case defaulting to the latest (known) enumeration might work
> > out to be just the thing used by all future CPUs.
> >
> > So this is a subtle hint ;-)
> >
>
> I see what you mean. You talked about future cpus. But what about
> those old ones that are not atom, core2 or nehalem? Forget about
> them?
They dont have X86_FEATURE_ARCH_PERFMON set, right?
I made the switch statement under the assumption that it covers all
existing arch-perfmon CPU models. If not, the 'default:' placement
would indeed be buggy.
Ingo
--
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