From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756047Ab2FFOfi (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:35:38 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:31344 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752941Ab2FFOfh (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:35:37 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,352,1309762800"; d="scan'208";a="148897206" Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 07:35:36 -0700 From: Andi Kleen To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, eranian@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] perf, x86: Don't assume the alternative cycles encoding is architectural Message-ID: <20120606143536.GH28225@tassilo.jf.intel.com> References: <1338944211-28275-1-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> <1338979188.2749.92.camel@twins> <20120606141247.GD28225@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <1338992061.2749.111.camel@twins> <20120606142323.GG28225@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <1338992910.2749.121.camel@twins> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1338992910.2749.121.camel@twins> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 04:28:30PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 07:23 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > But it's very clear this cannot be done without a model check. > > I don't understand how you can even argue against that. > > Who said I fixed it without a model check? Do you mean the explicit PEBS disable? That's only for one model, but it did not address the underlying problem that Linux did non architecturally guaranteed things just based on ArchPerfmon. The PEBS disable still is needed even with my patch of course. > > But simply disabling it for a model isn't how you do things. Do you want it enabled per model? I can turn the flag around. Anything else? -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only