[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150415184115.GX21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 20:41:15 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
"acme@...radead.org" <acme@...radead.org>,
"eranian@...gle.com" <eranian@...gle.com>,
"andi@...stfloor.org" <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 3/6] perf, x86: large PEBS interrupt threshold
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 06:35:48PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote:
>
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 12:37:43PM -0400, Kan Liang wrote:
> > > @@ -280,8 +280,9 @@ static int alloc_pebs_buffer(int cpu)
> > > ds->pebs_absolute_maximum = ds->pebs_buffer_base +
> > > max * x86_pmu.pebs_record_size;
> > >
> > > - ds->pebs_interrupt_threshold = ds->pebs_buffer_base +
> > > - thresh * x86_pmu.pebs_record_size;
> > > + if (x86_pmu.intel_cap.pebs_format < 1)
> > > + ds->pebs_interrupt_threshold = ds->pebs_buffer_base +
> > > + x86_pmu.pebs_record_size;
> > >
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> >
> > I can't seem to figure out what this is about.. help?
>
> We move AUTO_RELOAD and large PEBS check to intel_pmu_hw_config.
> But for earlier platform, it calls x86_pmu_hw_config.
> So we force single PEBS record for old platform.
We're talking about intel_pmu vs core_pmu right? I don't think core_pmu
supports PEBS at all.
--
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