On 20-04-21, 09:13, Zanussi, Tom wrote: > Hi Vinod, > > On 4/20/2021 6:11 AM, Vinod Koul wrote: > > On 03-04-21, 11:45, Tom Zanussi wrote: > > > > > +config INTEL_IDXD_PERFMON > > > + bool "Intel Data Accelerators performance monitor support" > > > + depends on INTEL_IDXD > > > + default y > > > > default y..? > > Will change to n. That is the default, you may drop this line > > > > > > /* IDXD software descriptor */ > > > @@ -369,4 +399,19 @@ int idxd_cdev_get_major(struct idxd_device *idxd); > > > int idxd_wq_add_cdev(struct idxd_wq *wq); > > > void idxd_wq_del_cdev(struct idxd_wq *wq); > > > +/* perfmon */ > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_IDXD_PERFMON > > > > maybe use IS_ENABLED() ? > > > > > @@ -556,6 +562,8 @@ static int __init idxd_init_module(void) > > > for (i = 0; i < IDXD_TYPE_MAX; i++) > > > idr_init(&idxd_idrs[i]); > > > + perfmon_init(); > > > + > > > err = idxd_register_bus_type(); > > > if (err < 0) > > > return err; > > > @@ -589,5 +597,6 @@ static void __exit idxd_exit_module(void) > > > pci_unregister_driver(&idxd_pci_driver); > > > idxd_cdev_remove(); > > > idxd_unregister_bus_type(); > > > + perfmon_exit(); > > > > Ideally would make sense to add perfmon module first and then add use in > > idxd.. > > > > OK, I'll separate this out into a separate patch. > > > > +static ssize_t cpumask_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, > > > + char *buf); > > > + > > > +static cpumask_t perfmon_dsa_cpu_mask; > > > +static bool cpuhp_set_up; > > > +static enum cpuhp_state cpuhp_slot; > > > + > > > +static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(cpumask); > > > > Pls document these new attributes added ? > > > > > +static int perfmon_collect_events(struct idxd_pmu *idxd_pmu, > > > + struct perf_event *leader, > > > + bool dogrp) > > > > dogrp..? > > > > Yeah, bad name, first thought on seeing it is always 'dog'. ;-) Yep, that was my first read as well... i guess it would be better as do_grp -- ~Vinod
