Re: [PATCH v2] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Provide alias for IIO free-running boxes on SKX

[Jin, Yao]

One week nearly passed, I guess there is no any objections for this 
patch from community. :)

Thanks
Jin Yao

On 9/4/2018 3:45 PM, Jin, Yao wrote:
> On 9/4/2018 3:13 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 06:58:17PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
> > > root@skx /sys/devices# ls | grep uncore_iio
> > > uncore_iio_0
> > > uncore_iio_1
> > > uncore_iio_2
> > > uncore_iio_3
> > > uncore_iio_4
> > > uncore_iio_5
> > > uncore_iio_free_running_0
> > > uncore_iio_free_running_1
> > > uncore_iio_free_running_2
> > > uncore_iio_free_running_3
> > > uncore_iio_free_running_4
> > > uncore_iio_free_running_5
> >
> > > root@skx /sys/devices# ls | grep uncore_iio
> > > uncore_iio_0
> > > uncore_iio_1
> > > uncore_iio_2
> > > uncore_iio_3
> > > uncore_iio_4
> > > uncore_iio_5
> > > uncore_iio_cbdma
> > > uncore_iio_mcp0
> > > uncore_iio_mcp1
> > > uncore_iio_pcie0
> > > uncore_iio_pcie1
> > > uncore_iio_pcie2
> >
> > I think I'm ok with that, except of course for people that have
> > "free_running_#" in their scripts now and will to wtf when they upgrade
> > their kernel.
> >
> > Do we care about them?
>
> Yes, that may be a potential issue but maybe it's not since we really 
> don't know if some people have used uncore_iio_free_running_# in their 
> scripts or not.
>
> I write this patch is because I always forget the meaning of 
> uncore_iio_free_running_# so I have to go back to check the document 
> "Intel Xeon Processor Scalable Memory Family Uncore Performance 
> Monitoring" again and again to find the box definition. I guess other 
> people may have similar trouble.
>
> Maybe we wait some time to see more feedback from community?
>
> Thanks
> Jin Yao