Re: [PATCH v2] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Provide alias for IIO free-running boxes on SKX

["Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@linux.intel.com>]

On 9/4/2018 3:13 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 06:58:17PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
>> root@skx /sys/devices# ls | grep uncore_iio
>> uncore_iio_0
>> uncore_iio_1
>> uncore_iio_2
>> uncore_iio_3
>> uncore_iio_4
>> uncore_iio_5
>> uncore_iio_free_running_0
>> uncore_iio_free_running_1
>> uncore_iio_free_running_2
>> uncore_iio_free_running_3
>> uncore_iio_free_running_4
>> uncore_iio_free_running_5
> 
>> root@skx /sys/devices# ls | grep uncore_iio
>> uncore_iio_0
>> uncore_iio_1
>> uncore_iio_2
>> uncore_iio_3
>> uncore_iio_4
>> uncore_iio_5
>> uncore_iio_cbdma
>> uncore_iio_mcp0
>> uncore_iio_mcp1
>> uncore_iio_pcie0
>> uncore_iio_pcie1
>> uncore_iio_pcie2
> 
> I think I'm ok with that, except of course for people that have
> "free_running_#" in their scripts now and will to wtf when they upgrade
> their kernel.
> 
> Do we care about them?
> 

Yes, that may be a potential issue but maybe it's not since we really 
don't know if some people have used uncore_iio_free_running_# in their 
scripts or not.

I write this patch is because I always forget the meaning of 
uncore_iio_free_running_# so I have to go back to check the document 
"Intel Xeon Processor Scalable Memory Family Uncore Performance 
Monitoring" again and again to find the box definition. I guess other 
people may have similar trouble.

Maybe we wait some time to see more feedback from community?

Thanks
Jin Yao