Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:22:07 +0200 | | From | Robert Richter <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 05/10] perf, x86: Move Intel specific code to intel_pmu_init() |
| |
On 20.06.12 11:36:42, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 20:10 +0200, Robert Richter wrote: > > There is some Intel specific code in the generic x86 path. Move it to > > intel_pmu_init(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <robert.richter@amd.com> > > --- > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c > > index 1eb9f00..90d7097 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c > > @@ -1760,7 +1760,7 @@ static __init void intel_nehalem_quirk(void) > > } > > } > > > > -__init int intel_pmu_init(void) > > +static __init int __intel_pmu_init(void) > > { > > union cpuid10_edx edx; > > union cpuid10_eax eax; > > @@ -1955,3 +1955,46 @@ __init int intel_pmu_init(void) > > > > return 0; > > } > > + > > +__init int intel_pmu_init(void) > > +{ > > + struct event_constraint *c; > > + int ret = __intel_pmu_init(); > > > This seems like a nice enough cleanup all on its own, but why make it > two functions?
Didn't know if checks are necessary after p6_pmu_init() and p4_pmu_init(). I didn't want to touch the switch/case path containing p6_pmu_init() and p4_pmu_init(). But it seems the p4 and p6 pmus don't support fixed counters and have fix num_counter values. Thus we can skip the checks that are moved from init_hw_perf_events() in that case and leave intel_pmu_init() early.
-Robert
-- Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Operating System Research Center
|  |