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 S1752987AbbE0KLy (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 27 May 2015 06:11:54 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:52263 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751826AbbE0KLv (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 27 May 2015 06:11:51 -0400
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 12:11:36 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@maine.edu>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] perf/x86: Improve HT workaround GP counter
 constraint
Message-ID: <20150527101136.GX3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20150522132905.416122812@infradead.org>
 <20150522133135.447912500@infradead.org>
 <CABPqkBSpmMUOhK4oAVVDYctwizyi5mSm=o+A4XmtivZAq-Z5HA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150526101548.GL3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CABPqkBSnJmnF-v1JXC2Wj0Qw1q+wa8WY3krVFWVP8VPix2se=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150526131950.GO3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20150526160712.GQ18673@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CABPqkBRUGi_7Fz6i529iKHSFG2RWTHyymi+AVsssPPbUm208+w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABPqkBRUGi_7Fz6i529iKHSFG2RWTHyymi+AVsssPPbUm208+w@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 Wed, May 27, 2015 at 02:01:04AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> But are you removing the incremental calls from the upper layer via
> x86_pmu.add()?
> If not, then you are saying the dynamic constraint you got for
> offcore_response, LBR
> or the HT workaround is still the best avail now.

sigh, see I knew I was missing something :/

So then for c->flag & DYNAMIC we should put and get again, right?