lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] perf, x86: add Intel IvyBridge event scheduling constraints
From
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
As far as I know and I double-checked the documentation I have, there
is no CYCLE_ACTIVITY
event on SNB or SNB-EP.

> 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.
>
I don't see the point of this, except saving a few bytes. Isn't it
better to keep each PMU separate?


> -Andi
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-20 22:02    [W:0.072 / U:2.312 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site