On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 12:14:49PM -0400, Liang, Kan wrote: > > > On 6/3/2019 11:47 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 06:41:21AM -0700, [email protected] wrote: > > > @@ -4962,7 +4965,9 @@ __init int intel_pmu_init(void) > > > x86_pmu.cpu_events = get_icl_events_attrs(); > > > x86_pmu.rtm_abort_event = X86_CONFIG(.event=0xca, > > > .umask=0x02); > > > x86_pmu.lbr_pt_coexist = true; > > > - intel_pmu_pebs_data_source_skl(false); > > > + intel_pmu_pebs_data_source_skl( > > > + (boot_cpu_data.x86_model == INTEL_FAM6_ICELAKE_X) || > > > + (boot_cpu_data.x86_model == INTEL_FAM6_ICELAKE_XEON_D)); > > > > That's pretty sad, a model switch inside a model switch :/ > > > > > pr_cont("Icelake events, "); > > > name = "icelake"; > > > break; > > > > Would something like so not be nicer? > > Yes, it looks better. Thanks. > > Should I combine your patch with mine, and send out V2? > Or are you prefer to add your patch on top of this patch set?
I'll frob it. Thanks!
