From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752835AbbCWNcL (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:32:11 -0400
Received: from mail-we0-f169.google.com ([74.125.82.169]:33713 "EHLO
	mail-we0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752514AbbCWNcH (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:32:07 -0400
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 14:32:02 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] perf, x86: Add INST_RETIRED.ALL workarounds
Message-ID: <20150323133202.GB23145@gmail.com>
References: <1424225886-18652-1-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org>
 <1424225886-18652-3-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org>
 <20150323093854.GA24993@gmail.com>
 <20150323101935.GD23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20150323103900.GB12213@gmail.com>
 <20150323123507.GE23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150323123507.GE23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:39:00AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/specification-updates/5th-gen-core-family-spec-update.pdf
> > > 
> > > BDM11 and BDM55 (not 57) tell us that the PMU will generate crap output
> > > if you don't do this. Non-fatal but gibberish.
> > 
> > Should be part of the changelog?
> 
> Sure, lemme go make that happen.
> 
> > So I did not say rounding up, I meant this sentence:
> > 
> > > > > + *   [...] We combine the two to enforce
> > > > > + * a min-period of 128.
> > 
> > IMO ambiguously suggests that the result of the combination of the two 
> > is to enforce a min-period of 128. Would somethin like this:
> > 
> > 	          We combine the two to enforce
> >           a min-period of 128, rounded (down) to multiples of 64.
> >           The original period is still kept by the core code and is 
> >           approximated in the long run via these slightly fuzzed 
> >           hardware-periods.
> 
> Like so then?

Yeah, looks good to me!

Thanks,

	Ingo