From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935887Ab3BTPnr (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:43:47 -0500 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]:23167 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934060Ab3BTPnq (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:43:46 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,702,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="204487814" Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 07:43:44 -0800 From: Andi Kleen To: Stephane Eranian Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@elte.hu, acme@redhat.com, jolsa@redhat.com, namhyung.kim@lge.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf, x86: add Intel IvyBridge event scheduling constraints Message-ID: <20130220154344.GD23293@tassilo.jf.intel.com> References: <1361355312-3323-1-git-send-email-eranian@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1361355312-3323-1-git-send-email-eranian@google.com> 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, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:15:12AM +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote: > Intel IvyBridge processor has different constraints compared > to SandyBridge. Therefore it needs its own contraint table. > This patch adds the constraint table. Without this patch, > the events listed in the patch may not be scheduled correctly > and bogus counts may be collected. Thanks. I ran into this problem too and was about to write a similar patch. > + INTEL_UEVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x04a3, 0xf), /* CYCLE_ACTIVITY.CYCLES_NO_EXECUTE */ > + INTEL_UEVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x05a3, 0xf), /* CYCLE_ACTIVITY.STALLS_L2_PENDING */ > + INTEL_UEVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x06a3, 0xf), /* CYCLE_ACTIVITY.STALLS_LDM_PENDING */ > + INTEL_UEVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x08a3, 0x4), /* CYCLE_ACTIVITY.CYCLES_L1D_PENDING */ > + INTEL_UEVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x0ca3, 0x4), /* CYCLE_ACTIVITY.STALLS_L1D_PENDING */ Except for LDM_PENDING the CYCLE_ACTIVITY events have been also added to Sandy Bridge. So it should be also added there. In fact I think you can still share the table because it would just add some non existent events to Sandy Bridge, which is a noop. -Andi