On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Liang, Kan <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:46:29PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:11:41PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: >> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c >> > > > b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c >> > > > index b9826a9..651a86d 100644 >> > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c >> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c >> > > > @@ -1586,6 +1586,8 @@ static int intel_pmu_handle_irq(struct >> pt_regs *regs) >> > > > if (!x86_pmu.late_ack) >> > > > apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, APIC_DM_NMI); >> > > > __intel_pmu_disable_all(); >> > > > + if (cpuc->core_misc_active_mask) >> > > > + intel_core_misc_pmu_disable(); >> > > >> > > Huh? Free running counters have nothing to do with the PMU >> > > interrupt; there's nothing they can do to trigger it. This feels very >> > > hacky. >> > > >> > > If this is necessary, surely it should live in __intel_pmu_disable_all? >> > > >> > > [...] >> > >> > Yeah this is crazy. It should not live in the regular PMU at all, not >> > be Intel specific. >> >> lkml.kernel.org/r/2c37309d20afadf88ad4a82cf0ce02b9152801e2.143025615 >> [email protected] >> >> That does the right thing for free running MSRs. >> >> Take it and expand. > > The first patch did the similar thing as the link you shared with. > Here is the first patch. > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/16/953 > > This patch is expend the per-core core_misc PMU based on the first patch. > I implemented this patch is because that one of the biggest concern > from upstream for mix PMU group is that it breaks group semantics. > When one PMU is stop, the other PMU is still running. > So I introduce the enable/disable function. Other PMUs can discard the counter > value for core_misc event when they are stop or in irq. > > If you think it should not live in the regular PMU, I can just remove the > codes. > We just keep core_misc event running and no harm in it.
I know very little about perf pmu organization, but I think that AMD supports APERF and MPERF, too, so it may make sense to have that thing live outside a file with "intel" in the name. Also, should the driver detect those using the cpuid bit? --Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
