Re: [RFC] perf/x86/intel/uncore: pmu->type->single_fixed question

From	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [RFC] perf/x86/intel/uncore: pmu->type->single_fixed question
Date	2016-12-01 17:40 +0100
Message-ID	<sJCyS-6te-19@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<sJaMi-52Z-33@gated-at.bofh.it> <sJemS-7mo-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <sJhkJ-Ij-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <sJCyS-6te-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:34:43PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote:
> 
> > 
> > "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@intel.com> writes:
> > >
> > > Maybe we should create a clocktick box for client uncore to fix it.
> > 
> > That would break all the user space code that uses the existing format.
> > 
> OK.
> If so, I think we should remove the non-exist events for non-first boxes.
> 
> What do you think about the patch as below?
> 
> Andi? Jirka?

Urgh, more lines for ugly :-(

I really would prefer to move the thing to its own PMU.

Thread

[RFC] perf/x86/intel/uncore: pmu->type->single_fixed question Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> - 2016-11-30 12:00 +0100
  RE: [RFC] perf/x86/intel/uncore: pmu->type->single_fixed question "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@intel.com> - 2016-11-30 15:50 +0100
    Re: [RFC] perf/x86/intel/uncore: pmu->type->single_fixed question Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> - 2016-11-30 19:00 +0100
      Re: [RFC] perf/x86/intel/uncore: pmu->type->single_fixed question Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-12-01 17:40 +0100
      RE: [RFC] perf/x86/intel/uncore: pmu->type->single_fixed question "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@intel.com> - 2016-12-01 17:40 +0100
  RE: [RFC] perf/x86/intel/uncore: pmu->type->single_fixed question "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@intel.com> - 2016-11-30 16:30 +0100
    Re: [RFC] perf/x86/intel/uncore: pmu->type->single_fixed question Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> - 2016-11-30 16:40 +0100

csiph-web