From: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, acme@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
mark.rutland@arm.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com,
jolsa@kernel.org, namhyung@kernel.org, irogers@google.com,
adrian.hunter@intel.com, eranian@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] perf: Support branch events logging
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:53:24 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <085fa11e-ea07-c148-1b32-8a09007ee12b@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230414160945.GC761523@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 2023-04-14 12:09 p.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 11:56:41AM -0400, Liang, Kan wrote:
>>> If it were to only support 4, then
>>> we're in counter scheduling contraint hell again
>>
>> Unfortunately, yes.
>>
>>> and we need to somehow
>>> group all these things together with the LBR event.
>>
>> Group will bring many limits for the usage. For example, I was told
>> there could be someone wants to use it with multiplexing.
>
> You can create two groups, each with an LBR event, no?
If we put everything in a group, that will make the enabling much
simpler. I don't think the perf tool needs the order information
anymore. Because the kernel enables the events one by one in a group.
The kernel just need to convert the information from the counter order
to the enabling order and dump to user space.
But if we have two groups with LBR event, the order information is still
required. Why we still want to group things?
Thanks,
Kan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-14 17:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-10 20:43 [PATCH 1/6] perf/x86/intel: Add Grand Ridge and Sierra Forest kan.liang
2023-04-10 20:43 ` [PATCH 2/6] perf: Support branch events logging kan.liang
2023-04-14 10:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-14 13:35 ` Liang, Kan
2023-04-14 14:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-14 15:56 ` Liang, Kan
2023-04-14 16:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-14 17:53 ` Liang, Kan [this message]
2023-04-14 19:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-14 20:34 ` Liang, Kan
2023-04-14 22:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-14 22:47 ` Andi Kleen
2023-04-17 11:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-17 13:37 ` Andi Kleen
2023-04-17 14:07 ` Liang, Kan
2023-04-17 11:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-17 13:41 ` Andi Kleen
2023-04-10 20:43 ` [PATCH 3/6] perf/x86/intel: Support LBR event logging kan.liang
2023-04-10 20:43 ` [PATCH 4/6] tools headers UAPI: Sync include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h header with the kernel kan.liang
2023-04-10 20:43 ` [PATCH 5/6] perf tools: Add branch event knob kan.liang
2023-04-10 20:43 ` [PATCH 6/6] perf tools: Support PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_EVENT_IDS kan.liang
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=085fa11e-ea07-c148-1b32-8a09007ee12b@linux.intel.com \
--to=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/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