Re: [PATCH] perf_events: update PEBS event constraints

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 15:50 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> +static void intel_ds_init_pebs_constraints(void)
> +{
> +       /*
> +        * we only know hwo to deal with Family 6
> +        */
> +       if (boot_cpu_data.x86 != 6) {
> +               x86_pmu.pebs = 0;
> +               return;
> +       }
> +
> +       switch (boot_cpu_data.x86_model) {
> +       case 14: /* 65 nm core solo/duo, "Yonah" */
> +               /* do not have PEBS */
> +               x86_pmu.pebs = 0;
> +               break;
> +
> +       case 15: /* original 65 nm celeron/pentium/core2/xeon, "Merom"/"Conroe" */
> +       case 22: /* single-core 65 nm celeron/core2solo "Merom-L"/"Conroe-L" */
> +       case 23: /* current 45 nm celeron/core2/xeon "Penryn"/"Wolfdale" */
> +       case 29: /* six-core 45 nm xeon "Dunnington" */
> +               x86_pmu.pebs_constraints = intel_core_pebs_events;
> +               pr_cont("(Core2), ");
> +               break;
> +
> +       case 26: /* 45 nm nehalem, "Bloomfield" */
> +       case 30: /* 45 nm nehalem, "Lynnfield" */
> +       case 46: /* 45 nm nehalem-ex, "Beckton" */
> +               x86_pmu.pebs_constraints = intel_nehalem_pebs_events;
> +               pr_cont("(Nehalem), ");
> +               break;
> +
> +       case 28: /* Atom */
> +               x86_pmu.pebs_constraints = intel_atom_pebs_events;
> +               pr_cont("(Atom), ");
> +               break;
> +
> +       case 37: /* 32 nm nehalem, "Clarkdale" */
> +       case 44: /* 32 nm nehalem, "Gulftown" */
> +               x86_pmu.pebs_constraints = intel_westmere_pebs_events;
> +               pr_cont("(Westmere), ");
> +               break;
> +
> +       default:
> +               printk(KERN_CONT "PEBS not yet supported for model %d,",
> +                      boot_cpu_data.x86_model);
> +               x86_pmu.pebs = 0;
> +       }
> +} 

Right so you mentioned you had something like this, but could we please
use the one model switch in perf_event_intel.c and not replicate that,
otherwise its too easy to miss a model someplace.