On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 10:39:01PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 21 Sep 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote: > > > Dear Maintainers, > > Sorry for replying late. > > > 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) <[email protected]> > > > > > > > Could you please consider this series for inclusion into v4.19? > > So in principle I'm having no objections as this really is mostly a RDT > only issue. > > Peter, any objections against the Perf part of it, aside the core patch > which is an obvious fix?
Nope, look up a few lines to observe my Ack ;-)
