Re: [PATCH RESEND 0/3] perf, amd: Support for Family 16h L2I Performance Counters

Jacob Shin
2013-04-10T15:03:30Z

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 02:29:44PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > * Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 13:49 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Hmm.. the 15h old interface bits got merged? I thought I kept telling
> >> >> > that should be done like the intel uncore stuff since the hardware
> >> >> > interface wasn't retarded anymore.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ah well, that crap seems to have slipped in in Feb when I was still a
> >> >> near vegetable and not paying much attention.
> >> >>
> >> >> /me curses a bit.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't suppose we can deprecate it and remove this stuff?
> >> >
> >> > I think we can - if there's a functional replacement.
> >> >
> >> Does the existing code expose a type in sysfs?

It does not.

> >> If not then you cannot do this transparently, I am afraid
> >> because the syntax would be different, i.e., not cpu/...
> >
> > That could be compatibility-bridged over in tooling?
> >
> > I doubt these events are in heavy use.
> >
> I agree.

Right, I don't think they are.

>
> >> I reviewed the code and tested it. But at the time, I thought
> >> you had agreed on the approach used.
> >
> > I did - but PeterZ has a point, so it would be nice if we could improve on that.
> >
> I think it is doable by cloning some of the functions into an amd_unc.c file.
>

Sigh .. okay ....