[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bd2c7d89-e020-05ba-d2d6-516e76c68a6f@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 11:18:40 -0500
From: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
bp@...en8.de, mingo@...hat.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
eranian@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 2/5] perf/x86/kvm: Avoid unnecessary work in guest
filtering
On 2/4/2019 11:15 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 10:43:41AM -0500, Liang, Kan wrote:
>>> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/ds.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/ds.c
>>> @@ -1628,6 +1628,7 @@ void __init intel_ds_init(void)
>>> x86_pmu.bts = boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_BTS);
>>> x86_pmu.pebs = boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PEBS);
>>> x86_pmu.pebs_buffer_size = PEBS_BUFFER_SIZE;
>>> + x86_pmu.pebs_no_isolation = 1;
>>
>> We will submit the Icelake support soon (probably next week).
>> That will be a problem for Icelake.
>
> We can have ICL set it to 0 explicitly, but explicitly setting it to 1
> _11_ times is just silly.
>
> Also, what perfmon version will ICL have? If it were to be 5 we could
> key off of that.
>
Right, we can use perfmon version here. I will apply it in V7.
Thanks,
Kan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists