[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTim4Lxu9diPQQ15Rv-esBU_uCLVPDiuwFaXA6hKK@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:46:28 +0100
From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To: Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 -tip] perf: x86, add SandyBridge support
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 22:24 +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 22:21 +0800, Lin Ming wrote:
>> > > > #define INTEL_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(c, n) \
>> > > > EVENT_CONSTRAINT(c, n, ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL_EVENT)
>> > > > +#define INTEL_EVENT_CONSTRAINT2(c, n) \
>> > > > + EVENT_CONSTRAINT(c, n, INTEL_ARCH_EVENT_MASK)
>> > >
>> > > That's a particularly bad name, how about something like
>> > >
>> > > INTEL_UEVENT_CONSTRAINT or somesuch.
>> >
>> > OK.
>> >
>> > But any case it's duplicated with PEBS_EVENT_CONSTRAINT.
>> >
>> > #define PEBS_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(c, n) \
>> > EVENT_CONSTRAINT(c, n, INTEL_ARCH_EVENT_MASK)
>>
>> Ah, indeed, so maybe we can remove PEBS_EVENT_CONSTRAINT and use regular
>> INTEL_*_CONSTRAINTS there, that could also help for PEBS events where
>> all umasks are allowed (not sure there are any such things but the SNB
>> PEBS list was quite large).
>
> Yes, there are, for example, BR_INST_RETIRED.*
>
I think most of the time all umasks are allowed.
>
--
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