[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101118111630.GB12667@basil.fritz.box>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:16:36 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, eranian@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] perf-events: Add support for supplementary event
registers v3
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:12:59PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > u64 enable_mask)
> > {
> > wrmsrl(hwc->config_base + hwc->idx, hwc->config | enable_mask);
> > + if (hwc->extra_reg)
> > + wrmsrl(hwc->extra_reg, hwc->extra_config);
> > }
>
> Just wondering, shouldn't we program the extra msr _before_ we flip the
> enable bit?
Yes that makes sense.
> > + * Runs later because per cpu allocations don't work early on.
> > + */
> > +__initcall(init_intel_percore);
>
> I've got a patch moving the whole pmu init to early_initcall(), which is
> after mm_init() so it would actually work.
So do you want to make this patchkit depend on that patch?
Or just integrate it and then change later?
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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