Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 2 Nov 2017 15:16:29 +0100 (CET) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH V3 1/5] perf/x86/intel/uncore: customized pmu event read for client IMC uncore |
| |
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 2 Nov 2017, Liang, Kan wrote: > > > On Thu, 2 Nov 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2 Nov 2017, Liang, Kan wrote: > > > > > Patch 5/5 will clean up the client IMC uncore. > > > > > Before that, we still need it to make client IMC uncore work. > > > > > > > > > > This patch isolates the >= case for client IMC uncore. > > > > > > > > Fair enough. A comment to that effect (even when removed later) would > > > > have avoided that question. > > > > > > Thinking more about it. The current code only supports the fixed one, right? > > > So why would it deal with anything > FIXED? > > > > > > > There are two free running counters in IMC. > > To support the second one, the previous code implicitly do > > UNCORE_PMC_IDX_FIXED + 1. > > So it has to deal with > FIXED case. > > > > case SNB_UNCORE_PCI_IMC_DATA_READS: > > base = SNB_UNCORE_PCI_IMC_DATA_READS_BASE; > > idx = UNCORE_PMC_IDX_FIXED; > > break; > > case SNB_UNCORE_PCI_IMC_DATA_WRITES: > > base = SNB_UNCORE_PCI_IMC_DATA_WRITES_BASE; > > idx = UNCORE_PMC_IDX_FIXED + 1; > > break; > > default: > > return -EINVAL; > > Fugly that is, but as its cleaned up later....
But then you have this in uncore_perf_event_update():
- if (event->hw.idx >= UNCORE_PMC_IDX_FIXED) + if (event->hw.idx == UNCORE_PMC_IDX_FIXED)
So how is that supposed to work?
I think your patch order is wrong and breaks bisectability all over the place as you fixup the UNCORE_PMC_IDX_FIXED + 1 hackery in 5/5.
Thanks,
tglx
| |