From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2D70ECE567 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 16:49:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B542B21568 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 16:49:54 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B542B21568 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2390856AbeIUWjg (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Sep 2018 18:39:36 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:45512 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2390619AbeIUWjg (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Sep 2018 18:39:36 -0400 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Sep 2018 09:49:52 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,285,1534834800"; d="scan'208";a="259212511" Received: from rchatre-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.24.14.50]) ([10.24.14.50]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Sep 2018 09:49:52 -0700 Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 0/6] perf and x86/intel_rdt: Fix lack of coordination with perf To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, fenghua.yu@intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com, mingo@redhat.com, acme@kernel.org, gavin.hindman@intel.com, jithu.joseph@intel.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20180920141150.GY24124@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> From: Reinette Chatre Message-ID: <77383a1e-f343-7529-24cf-874f0999507d@intel.com> Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 09:49:48 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180920141150.GY24124@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Dear Maintainers, On 9/20/2018 7:11 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:29:05AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: >> Reinette Chatre (6): >> perf/core: Add sanity check to deal with pinned event failure >> perf/x86: Add helper to obtain performance counter index >> x86/intel_rdt: Remove local register variables >> x86/intel_rdt: Create required perf event attributes >> x86/intel_rdt: Use perf infrastructure for measurements >> x86/intel_rdt: Re-enable pseudo-lock measurements >> >> Documentation/x86/intel_rdt_ui.txt | 22 +- >> arch/x86/events/core.c | 21 ++ >> arch/x86/include/asm/perf_event.h | 1 + >> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_rdt_pseudo_lock.c | 372 ++++++++++++-------- >> kernel/events/core.c | 6 + >> 5 files changed, 261 insertions(+), 161 deletions(-) > > Yeah, these look good, thanks! > > Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) > Could you please consider this series for inclusion into v4.19? - This series is needed to complete the initial cache pseudo-locking enabling that is first introduced in v4.19. Without this series users are able to create pseudo-locked regions but unable to accurately measure their success. - This is not adding a new feature of pseudo-locked region measurement but fixing the existing measurement code that was disabled after found to be poorly integrated. - This series consists out of 6 patches. Patches 2 to 6 are either new code in support of this fix or fixes to code that does not exist in kernels before v4.19. - Patch 1 is a fix to existing code. It is small, was suggested by, and does have support from maintainer. Even so, if it is felt that this is too risky then patches 2 to 6 could still be merged since it does not actually depend on patch 1. In retrospect I should have submitted it separately. Your consideration would be greatly appreciated. Thank you Reinette