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 S1753405Ab3A2Pug (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:50:36 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:10724 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751451Ab3A2Puc (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:50:32 -0500
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:49:19 +0100
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Corey Ashford <cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] perf x86: Add off-core event constraints for
 Sandy/IvyBridge micro architecture
Message-ID: <20130129154918.GH8339@krava.brq.redhat.com>
References: <1359307995-30640-1-git-send-email-jolsa@redhat.com>
 <CABPqkBSKGMUAdbqRGUWoaMH1McLDGgZUfHw3P4BAAOLSDYjH8Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABPqkBSKGMUAdbqRGUWoaMH1McLDGgZUfHw3P4BAAOLSDYjH8Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 06:49:55PM +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote:
> > hi,
> > I was looking at the offcore stuff and it looks like we might
> > be missing some constraints for offcore response events on
> > Sandy/IvyBridge.
> >
> > The table 18.8.5 (Off-core Response Performance Monitoring)
> > in Intel SDM states PMC0 for 0xb7 and PMC3 for 0xbb, but
> > there's no other explanation or related description.
> >
> > I can't say/ack if the counters looks bad or right with or
> > without the patch so far.. so just curious ;-)
> >
> Those are artificial constraints which should not be there.
> Remember that offcore_rsp uses an extra MSR which has
> to be shared by all the counters on the PMU. So a way to
> handle the sharing of that extra MSR is to impose an
> artificial constraint on the event itself. If it can only run
> on one counter, then you get the management of the
> extra MSR for free, i.e., only one event gets it.
> 
> In perf_events, we use a more sophisticated dynamic scheme
> which does not use this artificial constraint. We can measure
> the event multiple times and share the extra MSR if possible
> (same value). Why multiple times you might ask? For instance,
> with different priv levels.
> 
> 
> Hope this helps.

nice, thanks a lot for explanation

jirka