[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1264064344.4283.1136.camel@laptop>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:59:04 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: eranian@...il.com
Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>,
Dan Terpstra <terpstra@...s.utk.edu>,
Philip Mucci <mucci@...s.utk.edu>,
Maynard Johnson <mpjohn@...ibm.com>, Carl Love <cel@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] perf_events: support for uncore a.k.a. nest units
On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 09:47 +0100, stephane eranian wrote:
> I don't think that is correct. You can be using the uncore PMU on Nehalem
> without any core PMU event. The only thing to realize is that uncore PMU
> shares the same interrupt vector as core PMU. You need to configure which
> core the uncore is going to interrupt on. This is done via a bitmask, so you
> can interrupt more than one core at a time. Several strategies are possible.
Ah, sharing the IRQ line is no problem. But from reading I got the
impression you need to configure an Offcore counter. See 30.6.2.1:
• EN_PMI_COREn (bit n, n = 0, 3 if four cores are present): When set, processor
core n is programmed to receive an interrupt signal from any interrupt enabled
uncore counter. PMI delivery due to an uncore counter overflow is enabled by
setting IA32_DEBUG_CTL.Offcore_PMI_EN to 1.
Which seems to indicate a link with the off-core response thing.
However I would be very glad to be wrong :-)
--
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