From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from desiato.infradead.org (desiato.infradead.org [90.155.92.199]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 618CC41C63; Wed, 16 Apr 2025 19:56:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.92.199 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744833380; cv=none; b=XsvWVR96ARh0wz01L6AAw7niaKy+W20FPPgRRFOIv0WxdxYVX5wpJMA4iDo7JCOFa1bMIxc0ovGoNbh4+mZYDRlhQjqaLQ5ZUcCblnjyw+oIQyh/MyKdTQO2bqsZwNv/y5WoQpvMZHCeIdY0WAsFsRQHCW1BcSSPtiCKPvKAR7s= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744833380; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5wV13rrVkEDuGNmYV/mEsctwGgXsamDgPO9w3Z91qjA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=XKvtuRStxfKBybncSL8Mxf/t3pBEO0ARYL0UDNhNHaWJFvw7O024+uLbhFMSxH9SuPqODuk/sSBkktiwprdUr8kQviBaRRRpe2eh5Yai17oT5q9KMLIZLzBG/vR5WVY1i1sstVfl06EWZdG/Yx8U88uRUVQDPEGECr261NjbSCQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=KUK4eOTs; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.92.199 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="KUK4eOTs" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=desiato.20200630; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=mrDLfqxt1x8j6OHaeYiFz7AQul6goHuC1IfjL7cTrvo=; b=KUK4eOTs2gccm8jooWH+YjPQFn EEDAg0jC676oMpEYrsJJcmIXMaX2mC0A5cD9JWV7x3ajU7V90pGkVu+mBzApzulPQ8Eyj1OVmEd3e gdC4GwNFywB4siIfxRdkO+Cs2iFjSoph8/yimthiwl7Fmdniv4jMrkImtSIlVv4wfkGAb+DSuRKrJ UPPMex+nfulESy4v83aRNzJhkzaYKWRW2Ie9otX5iaIqMLt+7Q55E7DccQgPxtqS4HajVzXBa7SFk OE9PNWtcpEl40e9aX9QST4bYg0I+r8Nk3lFrWWEQ0u3MX3lI69+PStEFavaUHSAcTPoxbVLS1kHS0 y4g1hIfw==; Received: from 77-249-17-252.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl ([77.249.17.252] helo=noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net) by desiato.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.98.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1u58rj-0000000AASu-0GMH; Wed, 16 Apr 2025 19:56:11 +0000 Received: by noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 74F8B3003C4; Wed, 16 Apr 2025 21:56:10 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 21:56:10 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: "Liang, Kan" Cc: Dapeng Mi , Ingo Molnar , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Namhyung Kim , Ian Rogers , Adrian Hunter , Alexander Shishkin , Andi Kleen , Eranian Stephane , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, Dapeng Mi Subject: Re: [Patch v3 12/22] perf/x86/intel: Update dyn_constranit base on PEBS event precise level Message-ID: <20250416195610.GC38216@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20250415114428.341182-1-dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com> <20250415114428.341182-13-dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com> <20250415135323.GC4031@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <607b1f13-1d5d-4ea7-b0ab-f4c7f4fa319b@linux.intel.com> <20250416153226.GC17910@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 03:45:24PM -0400, Liang, Kan wrote: > I see. I think we can check the constraint table and update the overlap > bit accordingly. Similar to what we did in the > intel_pmu_check_event_constraints() for the fixed counters. > > I'm thinking something as below (Just a POC, not tested.) I'll try and digest in more detail tomorrow, but having overlap it *not* a good thing. Which is why I've always asked to make sure this doesn't happen :/ At the very least we should WARN if we find the dynamic constraint gets us there.