From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753109AbbC0MLF (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 27 Mar 2015 08:11:05 -0400
Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:40866 "EHLO
	casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752558AbbC0MLB (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 27 Mar 2015 08:11:01 -0400
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 13:10:52 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Cc: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@intel.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] perf/x86: filter branches for PEBS event
Message-ID: <20150327121052.GD23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1427393603-3533-1-git-send-email-kan.liang@intel.com>
 <CABPqkBR1rqh7F9a0iZPTWW-GTY1+-wFrYkw8VyNDOT2czxZG2w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABPqkBR1rqh7F9a0iZPTWW-GTY1+-wFrYkw8VyNDOT2czxZG2w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:40:14PM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> You are addressing one of the problems of this routine. But I think
> there is a more serious issue which is not addressed here. The
> intel_shared_regs_constraints() assumes that the associated event is
> necessarily unconstrained:
> 
> __intel_shared_reg_get_constraints()
> {
>     struct event_constraint *c = &emptyconstraint;
>    ...
> }

emptyconstraint != unconstrained.

Note how that function only returns emptyconstraint if its rejecting the
event, otherwise it returns NULL such that we continue calling
x86_get_event_constraint().

> This is true for offcore_response, but for LBR this may not always be the case.
> I may want to use LBR on the L1D_PEND_MISS event and it would need to
> be on counter 2.

> But I believe that the current code could place it on counter 0 simply
> because you return if shared_reg_get_constraint() is successful, but
> it looks only at the LBR constraint not the event constraint. I think
> in the presence of LBR, you always need to call share_get_reg() and
> x86_get_event_constraint().

Which, I think it does.