Re: [PATCH v2 6/8] perf/x86/uncore: add SNB/IVB/HSW client uncore memory controller support

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 05:25:39PM +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:20:12PM +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> This patch adds a new uncore PMU for Intel SNB/IVB/HSW client
> >
> >
> >> @@ -3501,6 +3844,28 @@ static int __init uncore_pci_init(void)
> >>               pci_uncores = ivt_pci_uncores;
> >>               uncore_pci_driver = &ivt_uncore_pci_driver;
> >>               break;
> >> +     case 42: /* Sandy Bridge */
> >> +             ret = snb_pci2phy_map_init(PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_SNB_IMC);
> >> +             if (ret)
> >> +                     return ret;
> >> +             pci_uncores = snb_pci_uncores;
> >> +             uncore_pci_driver = &snb_uncore_pci_driver;
> >> +             break;
> >> +     case 60: /* Haswell */
> >> +     case 69: /* Haswell Celeron */
> >> +             ret = snb_pci2phy_map_init(PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_HSW_IMC);
> >> +             if (ret)
> >> +                     return ret;
> >> +             pci_uncores = snb_pci_uncores;
> >> +             uncore_pci_driver = &hsw_uncore_pci_driver;
> >> +             break;
> >> +     case 58: /* Ivy Bridge */
> >> +             ret = snb_pci2phy_map_init(PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_IVB_IMC);
> >> +             if (ret)
> >> +                     return ret;
> >> +             pci_uncores = snb_pci_uncores;
> >> +             uncore_pci_driver = &ivb_uncore_pci_driver;
> >> +             break;
> >>       default:
> >>               return 0;
> >>       }
> >
> > I reorderd that list; but looking at perf_event_intel.c we have a lot
> > more HSW clients listed there. Plz as to make it consistent.
> 
> I don't have all of them, so no testing possible. I doubt they have so
> many clients model numbers.

Yeah, I don't have any of those chips.. last I have is WSM-EP.

Anyway, perf_event_intel.c lists: 60,63,69,70,71 as being haswell
clients.  Andi did all that, so if its wrong its on Intel anyway.

I'm still thinking we ought to make a big Intel classification function;
something that returns something like:

struct intel_part {
	enum { client, ep, ex } type;
	enum { core, core2, nhm, wsm, snb, ivb, hsw } gen;
};

And we can do things like:

  if (ip.type == client && ip.gen >= snb)

And then we only have to fix up the one classification function with all
those stupid model numbers, instead of having them duplicated all over
the stinking place.