[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150210171606.GB21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:16:06 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kan.liang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf, x86: Add new cache events table for Haswell
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 09:11:35AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Now the other tables create little helpers like:
> >
> > #define HSW_DMND_READ (HSW_DMND_DATA_RD)
> > #define HSW_DMND_WRITE (HSW_DMND_RFO)
> >
> > #define HSW_L3_ACCESS (HSW_ANY_RESPONSE)
> > #define HSW_L3_MISS (HSW_L3_MISS)
> >
> > And compose the tables values using those:
> >
> > HSW_DMND_READ|HSW_L3_ACCESS
> >
> > Please do so here too.
>
> I'm trying to stay with the official documented bit names. No such bit names exist.
> If we make up our own names nobody else can read it anymore.
Well, its a simple matter of looking up the bit definitions; we define
those helpers in terms of the official names after all.
By having the 4 helpers {r,w}x{access,miss} you avoid some repetition
and decrease the room for mistakes.
> > Now; when comparing these value to the SNB for example I note that you
> > include ANY_SNOOP and SUPPLIER_NONE in L3_ACCESS, SNB and other do not,
> > please explain.
>
> You're supposed to set a snoop and supplier qualifier.
> AFAIK SNB should set them too. It may work without them due to some
> quirk.
OK, then we should fix the others. Thanks.
--
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