[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151208083757.GD6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 09:37:57 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Harish Chegondi <harish.chegondi@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
Harish Chegondi <harish.chegondi@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi.kleen@...el.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>,
Lukasz Anaczkowski <lukasz.anaczkowski@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] perf/x86/intel: Add perf core PMU support for Intel
Knights Landing
On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 02:28:18PM -0800, Harish Chegondi wrote:
> Knights Landing core is based on Silvermont core with several differences.
> Like Silvermont, Knights Landing has 8 pairs of LBR MSRs. However, the
> LBR MSRs addresses match those of the Xeon cores' first 8 pairs of LBR MSRs
> +/* Knights Landing */
> +void intel_pmu_lbr_init_knl(void)
> +{
> + x86_pmu.lbr_nr = 8;
> + x86_pmu.lbr_tos = MSR_LBR_TOS;
> + x86_pmu.lbr_from = MSR_LBR_NHM_FROM;
> + x86_pmu.lbr_to = MSR_LBR_NHM_TO;
> +
> + x86_pmu.lbr_sel_mask = LBR_SEL_MASK;
> + x86_pmu.lbr_sel_map = snb_lbr_sel_map;
Also, unlike Silvermont, this thing seems to have hardware LBR filters.
So would it not be more accurate to say the KNL has a big core LBR
instead? (Note that this LBR setup isn't specific to Xeon's, all of the
Core chips have this, including the client parts).
> + pr_cont("8-deep LBR, ");
> +}
--
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