On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Andi Kleen <a...@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 > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
