Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:31:59 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 6/8] perf/x86/uncore: add SNB/IVB/HSW client uncore memory controller support | From | Stephane Eranian <> |
| |
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 05:25:39PM +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: >> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:20:12PM +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote: >> >> This patch adds a new uncore PMU for Intel SNB/IVB/HSW client >> > >> > >> >> @@ -3501,6 +3844,28 @@ static int __init uncore_pci_init(void) >> >> pci_uncores = ivt_pci_uncores; >> >> uncore_pci_driver = &ivt_uncore_pci_driver; >> >> break; >> >> + case 42: /* Sandy Bridge */ >> >> + ret = snb_pci2phy_map_init(PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_SNB_IMC); >> >> + if (ret) >> >> + return ret; >> >> + pci_uncores = snb_pci_uncores; >> >> + uncore_pci_driver = &snb_uncore_pci_driver; >> >> + break; >> >> + case 60: /* Haswell */ >> >> + case 69: /* Haswell Celeron */ >> >> + ret = snb_pci2phy_map_init(PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_HSW_IMC); >> >> + if (ret) >> >> + return ret; >> >> + pci_uncores = snb_pci_uncores; >> >> + uncore_pci_driver = &hsw_uncore_pci_driver; >> >> + break; >> >> + case 58: /* Ivy Bridge */ >> >> + ret = snb_pci2phy_map_init(PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_IVB_IMC); >> >> + if (ret) >> >> + return ret; >> >> + pci_uncores = snb_pci_uncores; >> >> + uncore_pci_driver = &ivb_uncore_pci_driver; >> >> + break; >> >> default: >> >> return 0; >> >> } >> > >> > I reorderd that list; but looking at perf_event_intel.c we have a lot >> > more HSW clients listed there. Plz as to make it consistent. >> >> I don't have all of them, so no testing possible. I doubt they have so >> many clients model numbers. > > Yeah, I don't have any of those chips.. last I have is WSM-EP. > > Anyway, perf_event_intel.c lists: 60,63,69,70,71 as being haswell > clients. Andi did all that, so if its wrong its on Intel anyway. > What he has is okay for core. They all have the same core PMU at 99%. But the uncore can be radically different. Look at IVB (58) vs IVB-EP (62). So this is more risky there. That is why I did not add the other model numbers.
> I'm still thinking we ought to make a big Intel classification function; > something that returns something like: > > struct intel_part { > enum { client, ep, ex } type; > enum { core, core2, nhm, wsm, snb, ivb, hsw } gen; > }; > > And we can do things like: > > if (ip.type == client && ip.gen >= snb) > > And then we only have to fix up the one classification function with all > those stupid model numbers, instead of having them duplicated all over > the stinking place.
Yeah, I am not opposed to that idea for PMU purposes.
| |