[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <85588439-ec0e-4824-8193-f0737880ecb9@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2025 10:19:34 -0500
From: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Eranian Stephane <eranian@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/20] perf/x86/intel: Parse CPUID archPerfmonExt leaves
for non-hybrid CPUs
On 2025-01-23 1:58 p.m., Andi Kleen wrote:
>> + /*
>> + * The archPerfmonExt (0x23) includes an enhanced enumeration of
>> + * PMU architectural features with a per-core view. For non-hybrid,
>> + * each core has the same PMU capabilities. It's good enough to
>> + * update the x86_pmu from the booting CPU. For hybrid, the x86_pmu
>> + * is used to keep the common capabilities. Still keep the values
>> + * from the leaf 0xa. The core specific update will be done later
>> + * when a new type is online.
>> + */
>> + if (!is_hybrid() && boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ARCH_PERFMON_EXT))
>> + update_pmu_cap(NULL);
>
> It seems ugly to have these different code paths. Couldn't non hybrid
> use x86_pmu in the same way? I assume it would be a larger patch.
The current non-hybrid is initialized in the intel_pmu_init(). But some
of the initialization code for the hybrid is in the
intel_pmu_cpu_starting(). Yes, it's better to move it together. It
should be a larger patch. Since it's impacted other features, a separate
patch set should be required.
Thanks,
Kan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists