From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752870Ab0KRLQp (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Nov 2010 06:16:45 -0500 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:52513 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751369Ab0KRLQo (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Nov 2010 06:16:44 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:16:36 +0100 From: Andi Kleen To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Andi Kleen , eranian@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] perf-events: Add support for supplementary event registers v3 Message-ID: <20101118111630.GB12667@basil.fritz.box> References: <1290077254-12165-1-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> <1290077254-12165-4-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> <1290078779.2109.1341.camel@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1290078779.2109.1341.camel@laptop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:12:59PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > u64 enable_mask) > > { > > wrmsrl(hwc->config_base + hwc->idx, hwc->config | enable_mask); > > + if (hwc->extra_reg) > > + wrmsrl(hwc->extra_reg, hwc->extra_config); > > } > > Just wondering, shouldn't we program the extra msr _before_ we flip the > enable bit? Yes that makes sense. > > + * Runs later because per cpu allocations don't work early on. > > + */ > > +__initcall(init_intel_percore); > > I've got a patch moving the whole pmu init to early_initcall(), which is > after mm_init() so it would actually work. So do you want to make this patchkit depend on that patch? Or just integrate it and then change later? -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.