[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1268341655.5037.138.camel@laptop>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:07:35 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: eranian@...gle.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, paulus@...ba.org,
fweisbec@...il.com, robert.richter@....com, davem@...emloft.net,
perfmon2-devel@...ts.sf.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf_events: remove bogus Intel Core constraint on
ITLB_MISS_RETIRED
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 12:59 -0800, eranian@...gle.com wrote:
> Contrary to what Vol3b section 30.4.3 leads to believe, there is
> no constraint on ITLB_MISS_RETIRED on Intel Core-based CPU, so
> remove it.
Is that from Intel, and will they clarify the text in the next version
of the document?
> Signed-off-by: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
> --
> perf_event_intel.c | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
> index 971dc6e..58e83cd 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
> @@ -43,7 +43,6 @@ static struct event_constraint intel_core2_event_constraints[] =
> INTEL_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x18, 0x1), /* IDLE_DURING_DIV */
> INTEL_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x19, 0x2), /* DELAYED_BYPASS */
> INTEL_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0xa1, 0x1), /* RS_UOPS_DISPATCH_CYCLES */
> - INTEL_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0xc9, 0x1), /* ITLB_MISS_RETIRED (T30-9) */
> INTEL_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0xcb, 0x1), /* MEM_LOAD_RETIRED */
> EVENT_CONSTRAINT_END
> };
--
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