Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf-events: Add support for supplementary eventregisters v2

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 18:17 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> I looked at this patch thinking how could this be reused for LBR_SELECT.
> 
> I am wondering if storing the extra MSR value in attr.config is really the way
> to go now as opposed to adding/overloading a field.
> 
> For OFFCORE_RESPONSE, it makes sense to use attr.config because this is
> a refinement of the event (a sub-sub event if you want).

Correct, it makes sense for offcore and load-latency, not so much for
lbr_config.

> For LBR_SELECT, you also need to pass a value, but there is no specific event
> associated with it. You can enable LBR with any event you want. Thus,
> storing the
> LBR_SELECT value independently would also make sense. And if we have this
> field for LBR_SELECT then we may as well use it for OFFCORE_REPONSE.

That would assume a single event doesn't contain offcore and lbr, no?
Currently the extra_reg thing assumes there's only one extra reg encoded
in the config word.

> The alternative would be to consider LBR_SELECT also as a refinement of
> the event being measured. Though by itself, it wouldn't do anything, it would
> have to be combine with a PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK to attr.sample_type.

A separate field for the lbr_config seems to make most sense, we could
of course use the top 16 bits for lbr, the next 16 for offcore/ll and
the bottom 32 for eventsel, but that's mighty crowded.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/