[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190410075138.GX11158@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 09:51:38 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: kan.liang@...ux.intel.com
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
acme@...nel.org, jolsa@...nel.org, eranian@...gle.com,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, ak@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf/x86/intel: Add Tremont core PMU support
On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 06:10:00PM -0700, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com wrote:
> The generic purpose counter 0 and fixed counter 0 have less skid.
> Force :ppp events on generic purpose counter 0.
> Force instruction:ppp always on fixed counter 0.
> +static struct event_constraint *
> +tnt_get_event_constraints(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc, int idx,
> + struct perf_event *event)
> +{
> + struct event_constraint *c;
> +
> + /*
> + * :ppp means to do reduced skid PEBS,
> + * which is available at PMC0 and fixed counter 0.
> + */
> + if (event->attr.precise_ip == 3) {
> + /* Force instruction:ppp in Fixed counter 0 */
> + if (event->hw.config == X86_CONFIG(.event=0xc0))
> + return &fixed_counter0_constraint;
> +
> + return &counter0_constraint;
I'm confused, 0xc0 is the architectural 'instructions' event, surely we
can program that on pmc0 too?
Did we want a fixed0_counter0_constraint for that?
> + }
> +
> + c = intel_get_event_constraints(cpuc, idx, event);
> +
> + return c;
> +}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists