[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABPqkBQt0a7Pi7X2cLz601TJEqasDXrOZcwuBhDCjcZ+ishPMw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 13:16:41 -0700
From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
"Phillips, Kim" <kim.phillips@....com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] perf/x86/rapl: add AMD Fam17h RAPL support
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 2:34 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 02:57:33PM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>
> > +static struct perf_msr amd_rapl_msrs[] = {
> > + [PERF_RAPL_PP0] = { 0, &rapl_events_cores_group, NULL},
> > + [PERF_RAPL_PKG] = { MSR_AMD_PKG_ENERGY_STATUS, &rapl_events_pkg_group, test_msr },
> > + [PERF_RAPL_RAM] = { 0, &rapl_events_ram_group, NULL},
> > + [PERF_RAPL_PP1] = { 0, &rapl_events_gpu_group, NULL},
> > + [PERF_RAPL_PSYS] = { 0, &rapl_events_psys_group, NULL},
> > +};
>
> Why have those !PKG things initialized? Wouldn't they default to 0
> anyway? If not, surely { 0, } is sufficient.
Yes, but that assumes that perf_msr_probe() is fixed to not expect a grp.
I think it is best to fix perf_msr_probe(). I already fixed one
problem, I'll fix this one as well.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists