From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752335Ab3BTWIG (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:08:06 -0500 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]:13525 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750784Ab3BTWIE (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:08:04 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,703,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="259517487" Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:08:02 -0800 From: Andi Kleen To: Stephane Eranian Cc: LKML , Peter Zijlstra , "mingo@elte.hu" , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Jiri Olsa , Namhyung Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf, x86: add Intel IvyBridge event scheduling constraints Message-ID: <20130220220802.GE23293@tassilo.jf.intel.com> References: <1361355312-3323-1-git-send-email-eranian@google.com> <20130220154344.GD23293@tassilo.jf.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > Except for LDM_PENDING the CYCLE_ACTIVITY events have been also added to Sandy Bridge. > > So it should be also added there. > > > As far as I know and I double-checked the documentation I have, there > is no CYCLE_ACTIVITY > event on SNB or SNB-EP. page 19-28 in the Jan 2013 SDM. It was only recently added. It's only a subset of what you have on Ivy Bridge. > > > In fact I think you can still share the table because it would just add some > > non existent events to Sandy Bridge, which is a noop. > > > I don't see the point of this, except saving a few bytes. Isn't it > better to keep each PMU separate? Ok, as long as you update the SNB table too. -Andi