From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756644AbaBKUeu (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:34:50 -0500 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:44247 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755653AbaBKUe0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:34:26 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 21:34:13 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Stephane Eranian Cc: LKML , "mingo@elte.hu" , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , "ak@linux.intel.com" , "Yan, Zheng" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/8] perf/x86/uncore: add SNB/IVB/HSW client uncore memory controller support Message-ID: <20140211203413.GB9987@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1392132015-14521-1-git-send-email-eranian@google.com> <1392132015-14521-7-git-send-email-eranian@google.com> <20140211161905.GS27965@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20140211165013.GV27965@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 07:31:59PM +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote: > > Anyway, perf_event_intel.c lists: 60,63,69,70,71 as being haswell > > clients. Andi did all that, so if its wrong its on Intel anyway. > > > What he has is okay for core. They all have the same core PMU at 99%. > But the uncore can be radically different. Look at IVB (58) vs IVB-EP (62). > So this is more risky there. That is why I did not add the other model numbers. Well, if any of those is a !client part; then still his fault for not putting in a comment. What's the worst that can happen? Failing to find the hardware I suppose seeing as this is all discoverable PCI space?