Re: [PATCH v2 -tip] perf: x86, add SandyBridge support
From: Stephane Eranian
Date: Mon Feb 28 2011 - 09:46:36 EST
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 22:24 +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 22:21 +0800, Lin Ming wrote:
>> > > > Â#define INTEL_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(c, n) Â Â Â \
>> > > > Â Â EVENT_CONSTRAINT(c, n, ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL_EVENT)
>> > > > +#define INTEL_EVENT_CONSTRAINT2(c, n) Â Â Â\
>> > > > + Â EVENT_CONSTRAINT(c, n, INTEL_ARCH_EVENT_MASK)
>> > >
>> > > That's a particularly bad name, how about something like
>> > >
>> > > INTEL_UEVENT_CONSTRAINT or somesuch.
>> > OK.
>> > But any case it's duplicated with PEBS_EVENT_CONSTRAINT.
>> > #define PEBS_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(c, n) Â Â \
>> > Â Â Â Â EVENT_CONSTRAINT(c, n, INTEL_ARCH_EVENT_MASK)
>> Ah, indeed, so maybe we can remove PEBS_EVENT_CONSTRAINT and use regular
>> INTEL_*_CONSTRAINTS there, that could also help for PEBS events where
>> all umasks are allowed (not sure there are any such things but the SNB
>> PEBS list was quite large).
> Yes, there are, for example, BR_INST_RETIRED.*
I think most of the time all umasks are allowed.
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/