From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932973AbeAXKRe (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jan 2018 05:17:34 -0500 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:52484 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752483AbeAXKRd (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jan 2018 05:17:33 -0500 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:17:21 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: "Liang, Kan" Cc: Andi Kleen , Stephane Eranian , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "acme@kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 4/8] perf/x86/intel/uncore: add new data structures for free running counters Message-ID: <20180124101721.GQ2228@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F07753801FEF@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20180119130731.GQ2228@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F077538025E7@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20180119171929.GZ2228@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F077538026F3@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F07753802712@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20180119202417.GK7844@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <20180119213355.GE2269@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F07753803C1E@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F07753803C1E@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:00:58PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:24:17PM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > Oh, think a bit more. > > > > I think we cannot do the same thing as we did for CPU PMU's fixed > > counters. > > > > > > > > The counters here are free running counters. They cannot be start/stop. > > > > > > Yes free running counter have completely different semantics. They > > > need a separate event code. > > > > The only thing that matters is if they count the same thing or not. > > > > Hi Peter, > > There is NO event available on the GPs, that is exactly the same as > the free-running counters. > > For example, the BW free-running counters count the requests associated > with writes and completions. > The most similar events on the GPs are DATA_REQ_{OF,BY}_CPU.* events. > Except that some of their sub-events count requests which not completions. > There are also other minor differences. > So we don't have alternative events for the free-running counters. > I think we have to use 0xff. OK, but explicitly mention this as the reason for having to invent event codes. Them being fixed purpose or free running isn't a valid reason for that.