[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87cym7l4no.ffs@tglx>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 14:23:07 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>, Li Huafei
<lihuafei1@...wei.com>, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com
Cc: acme@...nel.org, namhyung@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...nel.org, irogers@...gle.com,
adrian.hunter@...el.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Vince
Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel: Restrict period on Haswell
On Fri, Aug 16 2024 at 15:27, Kan Liang wrote:
> On 2024-08-15 7:43 p.m., Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> The HSW11 is also BDM11. It sounds like we need the trick from both bdw
> and nhm.
>
> How about this?
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> index e8bd45556c30..42f557a128b9 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> @@ -4664,6 +4664,12 @@ static void nhm_limit_period(struct perf_event
> *event, s64 *left)
> *left = max(*left, 32LL);
> }
>
> +static void hsw_limit_period(struct perf_event *event, s64 *left)
> +{
> + nhm_limit_period(event, left);
> + bdw_limit_period(event, left);
> +}
> static void glc_limit_period(struct perf_event *event, s64 *left)
> {
> if (event->attr.precise_ip == 3)
>
> Do you plan to post the "limit" patch for HSW?
> Or should I send the patch?
Go wild...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists