[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200117172726.GM302770@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 09:27:26 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: roman.sudarikov@...ux.intel.com, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...hat.com,
namhyung@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
eranian@...gle.com, bgregg@...flix.com, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com,
alexander.antonov@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] perf x86: Exposing an Uncore unit to PMON for Intel Xeon® server platform
> > Could you suggest how such a 1:N mapping should be expressed instead in
> > sysfs?
>
> I have yet to figure out what it is you all are trying to express here
> given a lack of Documentation/ABI/ file :)
I thought the example Roman gave was clear.
System has multiple dies
Each die has 4 pmon ports
Each pmon port per die maps to one PCI bus.
He mapped it to
pmon0-3: list of pci busses indexed by die
To be honest the approach doesn't seem unreasonable to me. It's similar
e.g. how we express lists of cpus or nodes in sysfs today.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists