[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <78e001bd-42bd-5481-5a19-1a0bcca9a63c@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 21:01:33 +0800
From: Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>
To: Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@....com>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
acme@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, namhyung@...nel.org,
jolsa@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
pbonzini@...hat.com, jmattson@...gle.com, eranian@...gle.com,
puwen@...on.cn, ananth.narayan@....com, ravi.bangoria@....com,
santosh.shukla@....com,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/7] perf/x86/amd/core: Detect PerfMonV2 support
On 27/4/2022 7:31 pm, Sandipan Das wrote:
> x86_pmu.num_counters = AMD64_NUM_COUNTERS_CORE;
Thus boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PERFCTR_CORE) is true.
> +
> + /* Check for Performance Monitoring v2 support */
> + if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PERFMON_V2)) {
> + /* Update PMU version for later usage */
> + x86_pmu.version = 2;
Is it safe to assume that once AMD CPU has the PERFMON_V2 (or further) bit,
it must also have the PERFCTR_CORE bit set ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists