[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240620074402.GS31592@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 09:44:02 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: kan.liang@...ux.intel.com
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, acme@...nel.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
irogers@...gle.com, adrian.hunter@...el.com,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ak@...ux.intel.com, eranian@...gle.com,
Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 05/12] perf/x86: Add config_mask to represent
EVENTSEL bitmask
On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 08:10:37AM -0700, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com wrote:
> From: Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
>
> Different vendors may support different fields in EVENTSEL MSR, such as
> Intel would introduce new fields umask2 and eq bits in EVENTSEL MSR
> since Perfmon version 6. However, a fixed mask X86_RAW_EVENT_MASK is
> used to filter the attr.config.
>
> @@ -1231,6 +1233,11 @@ static inline int x86_pmu_num_counters_fixed(struct pmu *pmu)
> return hweight64(hybrid(pmu, fixed_cntr_mask64));
> }
>
> +static inline u64 x86_pmu_get_event_config(struct perf_event *event)
> +{
> + return event->attr.config & hybrid(event->pmu, config_mask);
> +}
Seriously, we're going to be having such major event encoding
differences between cores on a single chip?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists