On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 11:29:54AM -0400, Liang, Kan wrote:
> On 8/6/2018 2:35 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 10:23:42AM -0700, kan.li...@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > > @@ -2044,6 +2056,14 @@ static void intel_pmu_disable_event(struct
> > > perf_event *event)
> > > if (unlikely(event->attr.precise_ip))
> > > intel_pmu_pebs_disable(event);
> > > + /*
> > > + * We could disable freezing here, but doesn't hurt if it's on.
> > > + * perf remembers the state, and someone else will likely
> > > + * reinitialize.
> > > + *
> > > + * This avoids an extra MSR write in many situations.
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > if (unlikely(hwc->config_base ==
> > > MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_FIXED_CTR_CTRL)) {
> > > intel_pmu_disable_fixed(hwc);
> > > return;
> > > @@ -2119,6 +2139,11 @@ static void intel_pmu_enable_event(struct
> > > perf_event *event)
> > > if (event->attr.exclude_guest)
> > > cpuc->intel_ctrl_host_mask |= (1ull << hwc->idx);
> > > + if (x86_pmu.counter_freezing && !cpuc->frozen_enabled) {
> > > + enable_counter_freeze();
> > > + cpuc->frozen_enabled = 1;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > if (unlikely(event_is_checkpointed(event)))
> > > cpuc->intel_cp_status |= (1ull << hwc->idx);
> >
> > Why here? That doesn't really make sense; should this not be in
> > intel_pmu_cpu_starting() or something?
>
>
> For Goldmont Plus, the counter freezing feature can be re-enabled at
> run-time by loading a newer microcode.
> We need to check the x86_pmu.counter_freezing every time.
Blergh, just don't go there. If we start with the wrong ucode, leave it
disabled.
We do that for most ucode stuff.
