Re: [PATCH V5 0/6] perf and x86/intel_rdt: Fix lack of coordination with perf

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 10:39:01PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> 
> > Dear Maintainers,
> 
> Sorry for replying late.
> 
> > On 9/20/2018 7:11 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:29:05AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> > >> Reinette Chatre (6):
> > >>   perf/core: Add sanity check to deal with pinned event failure
> > >>   perf/x86: Add helper to obtain performance counter index
> > >>   x86/intel_rdt: Remove local register variables
> > >>   x86/intel_rdt: Create required perf event attributes
> > >>   x86/intel_rdt: Use perf infrastructure for measurements
> > >>   x86/intel_rdt: Re-enable pseudo-lock measurements
> > >>
> > >>  Documentation/x86/intel_rdt_ui.txt          |  22 +-
> > >>  arch/x86/events/core.c                      |  21 ++
> > >>  arch/x86/include/asm/perf_event.h           |   1 +
> > >>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_rdt_pseudo_lock.c | 372 ++++++++++++--------
> > >>  kernel/events/core.c                        |   6 +
> > >>  5 files changed, 261 insertions(+), 161 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > Yeah, these look good, thanks!
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> > > 
> > 
> > Could you please consider this series for inclusion into v4.19?
> 
> So in principle I'm having no objections as this really is mostly a RDT
> only issue.
> 
> Peter, any objections against the Perf part of it, aside the core patch
> which is an obvious fix?

Nope, look up a few lines to observe my Ack ;-)