From: "Chen, Zide" <zide.chen@intel.com>
To: "Mi, Dapeng" <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Eranian Stephane <eranian@google.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
Xudong Hao <xudong.hao@intel.com>,
Falcon Thomas <thomas.falcon@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Update DMR uncore constraints preliminarily
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2025 13:53:58 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <252fe00c-e0d2-4e36-a1b8-da2ce799a26c@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7f151e4e-7fcf-4007-9c7d-a90af1c05f84@linux.intel.com>
On 12/22/2025 9:52 PM, Mi, Dapeng wrote:
>
> On 12/13/2025 5:00 AM, Zide Chen wrote:
>> Update event constraints base on the latest DMR uncore event list.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zide Chen <zide.chen@intel.com>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_snbep.c | 81 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 81 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_snbep.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_snbep.c
>> index e5b95fa75313..8068b9404ecb 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_snbep.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_snbep.c
>> @@ -6760,10 +6760,72 @@ static const struct attribute_group dmr_cxlcm_uncore_format_group = {
>> .attrs = dmr_cxlcm_uncore_formats_attr,
>> };
>>
>> +static struct event_constraint dmr_uncore_cxlcm_constraints[] = {
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x1, 0x0f),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x2, 0x0f),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x3, 0x0f),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x4, 0x0f),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x5, 0x0f),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x6, 0x0f),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x7, 0x0f),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x8, 0x0f),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x9, 0x0f),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0xa, 0x0f),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0xb, 0x0f),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0xc, 0x0f),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0xd, 0x0f),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0xe, 0x0f),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0xf, 0x0f),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x10, 0x0f),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x11, 0x0f),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x12, 0x0f),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x14, 0x0f),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x1d, 0x0f),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x1e, 0x0f),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x1f, 0x0f),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x20, 0x0f),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x21, 0x0f),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x22, 0x0f),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x23, 0x0f),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x24, 0x0f),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x41, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x42, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x43, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x44, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x45, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x46, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x47, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x48, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x49, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x4a, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x4b, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x4c, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x4e, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x50, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x51, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x52, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x53, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x54, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x55, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x56, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x57, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x58, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x59, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x5a, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x5b, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x5c, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x5d, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x5e, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x60, 0xf0),
>> + UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x61, 0xf0),
>
> Could we define a "UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT_RANGE()" macro just like what
> core PMU does (refer INTEL_EVENT_CONSTRAINT_RANGE macro)? Then we don't
> need to add so many lines.
>
> Maybe like this,
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c
> index 698bcd7fe5a0..bc4367a6628e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c
> @@ -437,7 +437,7 @@ uncore_get_event_constraint(struct intel_uncore_box
> *box, struct perf_event *eve
>
> if (type->constraints) {
> for_each_event_constraint(c, type->constraints) {
> - if ((event->hw.config & c->cmask) == c->code)
> + if (constraint_match(c, event->hw.config))
> return c;
> }
> }
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.h b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.h
> index 338713cd7a7d..f6fcee2a505e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.h
> @@ -32,7 +32,8 @@
> #define UNCORE_EXTRA_PCI_DEV 0xff
> #define UNCORE_EXTRA_PCI_DEV_MAX 4
>
> -#define UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(c, n) EVENT_CONSTRAINT(c, n, 0xff)
> +#define UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(c, n) EVENT_CONSTRAINT(c, n, 0xff)
> +#define UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT_RANGE(c, e, n) EVENT_CONSTRAINT_RANGE(c,
> e, n, 0xff)
>
> #define UNCORE_IGNORE_END -1
Agreed, this is the right way to go.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-23 21:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-12 21:00 [PATCH 0/7] Add Diamond Rapids uncore support Zide Chen
2025-12-12 21:00 ` [PATCH 1/7] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Add dual PCI/MSR discovery support Zide Chen
2025-12-23 3:07 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-12-12 21:00 ` [PATCH 2/7] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Add IMH PMON support for Diamond Rapids Zide Chen
2025-12-23 3:27 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-12-12 21:00 ` [PATCH 3/7] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Add CBB " Zide Chen
2025-12-23 3:38 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-12-12 21:00 ` [PATCH 4/7] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Add freerunning event descriptor helper macro Zide Chen
2025-12-23 3:39 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-12-12 21:00 ` [PATCH 5/7] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Support IIO free-running counters on DMR Zide Chen
2025-12-23 5:18 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-12-23 21:54 ` Chen, Zide
2025-12-12 21:00 ` [PATCH 6/7] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Update DMR uncore constraints preliminarily Zide Chen
2025-12-23 5:52 ` Mi, Dapeng
2025-12-23 21:53 ` Chen, Zide [this message]
2025-12-12 21:00 ` [PATCH 7/7] perf pmu: Relax uncore wildcard matching to allow numeric suffix Zide Chen
2025-12-23 5:58 ` Mi, Dapeng
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=252fe00c-e0d2-4e36-a1b8-da2ce799a26c@intel.com \
--to=zide.chen@intel.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=thomas.falcon@intel.com \
--cc=xudong.hao@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox