Re: [PATCH] perf_events: AMD event scheduling (v3)

[stephane eranian]

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 14:17 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 14:04 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>>
>> > > @@ -2268,7 +2268,7 @@ static inline int amd_is_nb_event(struct
>> > > Â Â Â Âu64 val = hwc->config & K7_EVNTSEL_EVENT_MASK;
>> > > Â Â Â Â/* event code : bits [35-32] | [7-0] */
>> > > Â Â Â Âval = (val >> 24) | (val & 0xff);
>> > > - Â Â Â return val >= 0x0e0;
>> > > + Â Â Â return val >= 0xe00;
>> > > Â}
>> > >
>> > I don't understand the change from 0xe0 to 0xe00.
>> > That's not the same thing at all.
>> > Event select is bits 0-7 + 32-35.
>>
>> OK that appears to be my bad, because you extended K7_EVNTSEL_EVENT_MASK
>> with bit 35 I thought NB events all had bit 35 set.
>>
>> But looking at the AMD docs it does indeed appear to start at 0xe0, and
>> there are no events with bit 35 set, only a few with bit 32.
>>
>> I'll switch it back to 0xe0.
>
> Fwiw, for the purpose of that function you might as well write:
>
> static inline int amd_is_nb_event(struct hw_perf_event *hwc)
> {
> Â Â Â Âreturn (hwc->config & K7_EVNTSEL_EVENT_MASK) > 0xe0;
> }
>
> No need to move bits around higher than the value you compare against.
>
I think given the existing event codes, that would be fine too.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/