From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D90D1C43143 for ; Sat, 29 Sep 2018 14:26:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92D4F2089D for ; Sat, 29 Sep 2018 14:26:01 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 92D4F2089D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728278AbeI2Uwe (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Sep 2018 16:52:34 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:38077 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728089AbeI2Uwe (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Sep 2018 16:52:34 -0400 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga007.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.58]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Sep 2018 07:23:56 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,320,1534834800"; d="scan'208";a="77136234" Received: from rchatre-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.251.9.142]) ([10.251.9.142]) by orsmga007.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 29 Sep 2018 07:23:55 -0700 Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 0/6] perf and x86/intel_rdt: Fix lack of coordination with perf To: Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner Cc: fenghua.yu@intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com, mingo@redhat.com, acme@kernel.org, gavin.hindman@intel.com, jithu.joseph@intel.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20180920141150.GY24124@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <77383a1e-f343-7529-24cf-874f0999507d@intel.com> <20180928065830.GE3439@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> From: Reinette Chatre Message-ID: <42c2b375-dbb9-11a3-8e2f-bec744e73b10@intel.com> Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2018 07:23:55 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180928065830.GE3439@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 9/27/2018 11:58 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 10:39:01PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> On Fri, 21 Sep 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote: >> >>> Dear Maintainers, >> >> Sorry for replying late. >> >>> On 9/20/2018 7:11 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:29:05AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: >>>>> Reinette Chatre (6): >>>>> perf/core: Add sanity check to deal with pinned event failure >>>>> perf/x86: Add helper to obtain performance counter index >>>>> x86/intel_rdt: Remove local register variables >>>>> x86/intel_rdt: Create required perf event attributes >>>>> x86/intel_rdt: Use perf infrastructure for measurements >>>>> x86/intel_rdt: Re-enable pseudo-lock measurements >>>>> >>>>> Documentation/x86/intel_rdt_ui.txt | 22 +- >>>>> arch/x86/events/core.c | 21 ++ >>>>> arch/x86/include/asm/perf_event.h | 1 + >>>>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_rdt_pseudo_lock.c | 372 ++++++++++++-------- >>>>> kernel/events/core.c | 6 + >>>>> 5 files changed, 261 insertions(+), 161 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> Yeah, these look good, thanks! >>>> >>>> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) >>>> >>> >>> Could you please consider this series for inclusion into v4.19? >> >> So in principle I'm having no objections as this really is mostly a RDT >> only issue. >> >> Peter, any objections against the Perf part of it, aside the core patch >> which is an obvious fix? > > Nope, look up a few lines to observe my Ack ;-) > I interpreted Thomas and Peter's responses to mean that there are no objections for this to be included in v4.19 as a fix. If I understand the tip branches correctly the core patch seems to be headed to v4.19 while the rest (excluding the final patch "x86/intel_rdt: Re-enable pseudo-lock measurements") are headed to v4.20. Have you decided against including this into v4.19 or did I misunderstand the responses and/or branches? Thank you for helping me to sort this out Reinette