[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120612171524.GH8404@aftab.osrc.amd.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 19:15:24 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc: Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
andi@...stfloor.org, mingo@...e.hu, ming.m.lin@...el.com,
Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>,
Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>,
Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86: check ucode before disabling PEBS on
SandyBridge
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 07:09:19PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > Instead of registering a microcode notifier, why not checking the
> > availability of pebs dynamically with each syscall in
> > intel_pmu_hw_config()? It looks like intel_snb_verify_ucode() is not
> > that much expensive. We can perform the check only if the event could
> > be for pebs and if pebs is broken. The check could be repeated when
> > setting up a new event after ucode could potentially has been updated
> > (e.g. after bringing a cpu online or so).
Yes, this will obviate the need for touching the microcode driver at all.
> That's what I had in my original version.
... and you decided not to do it like that because... ?
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach
GM: Alberto Bozzo
Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen
HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551
--
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