From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752936Ab1B1JIo (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Feb 2011 04:08:44 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:43628 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752577Ab1B1JIm (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Feb 2011 04:08:42 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:08:33 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Lin Ming Cc: Stephane Eranian , Peter Zijlstra , Andi Kleen , lkml Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 -tip] perf: x86, add SandyBridge support Message-ID: <20110228090833.GA7439@elte.hu> References: <1298877772.4937.25.camel@minggr.sh.intel.com> <1298883087.4937.42.camel@minggr.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1298883087.4937.42.camel@minggr.sh.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Lin Ming wrote: > > In other words, bit 0-3 of the umask cannot be zero. > > I got the umask from "Table 30-20. PEBS Performance Events for Intel > microarchitecture code name Sandy Bridge". > > But from "Table A-2. Non-Architectural Performance Events In the Processor Core > for Intel Core Processor 2xxx Series", the combinations are needed as you show > above. > > Which one is correct? Since you have access to the hardware, could you please test and see it in practice which one is correct? Thanks, Ingo