Re: [PATCH v2 -tip] perf: x86, add SandyBridge support

[Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@intel.com>]

On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 22:43 +0800, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 20:25 +0800, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 15:22 +0800, Lin Ming wrote:
> >> >> This patch adds basic SandyBridge support, including hardware cache
> >> >> events and PEBS events support.
> >> >>
> >> >> LLC-* hareware cache events don't work for now, it depends on the
> >> >> offcore patches.
> >> >
> >> > What's the status of those, Stephane reported some problems last I
> >> > remember?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>  #define INTEL_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(c, n) \
> >> >>       EVENT_CONSTRAINT(c, n, ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL_EVENT)
> >> >> +#define INTEL_EVENT_CONSTRAINT2(c, n)        \
> >> >> +     EVENT_CONSTRAINT(c, n, INTEL_ARCH_EVENT_MASK)
> >> >
> >> > That's a particularly bad name, how about something like
> >> >
> >> > INTEL_UEVENT_CONSTRAINT or somesuch.
> >> >
> >> >> @@ -702,7 +738,13 @@ static void intel_ds_init(void)
> >> >>                       printk(KERN_CONT "PEBS fmt1%c, ", pebs_type);
> >> >>                       x86_pmu.pebs_record_size = sizeof(struct pebs_record_nhm);
> >> >>                       x86_pmu.drain_pebs = intel_pmu_drain_pebs_nhm;
> >> >> -                     x86_pmu.pebs_constraints = intel_nehalem_pebs_events;
> >> >> +                     switch (boot_cpu_data.x86_model) {
> >> >> +                     case 42: /* SandyBridge */
> >> >> +                             x86_pmu.pebs_constraints = intel_snb_pebs_events;
> >> >> +                             break;
> >> >> +                     default:
> >> >> +                             x86_pmu.pebs_constraints = intel_nehalem_pebs_events;
> >> >> +                     }
> >> >>                       break;
> >> >>
> >> >>               default:
> >> >
> >> > We already have this massive model switch right after this function,
> >> > might as well move the pebs constraint assignment there.
> >> >
> >> My PEBS  patch was going to cleanup this part, though it was using
> >> it's own switch
> >> statement.
> >
> > Did you send out the patch? A link?
> >
> For what?

I mean your PEBS patch to do the cleanup.

> 
> >
> >