[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170222191848.GE1712@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 11:18:48 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>
Cc: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Odzioba, Lukasz" <lukasz.odzioba@...el.com>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86: fix event counter update issue
> No. It related to the counter width. The number of bits we can use should be
> 1 bit less than the total width. Otherwise, there will be problem.
> For big cores such as haswell, broadwell, skylake, the counter width is 48 bit.
> So we can only use 47 bits.
> For Silvermont and KNL, the counter width is only 32 bit I think. So we can only
> use 31 bits.
It is 40 bits on these cores, so 39bits.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists