On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 05:43:34PM +0800, Like Xu wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> > index 2db93498ff71..b42c1beb9924 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> > @@ -5933,7 +5933,6 @@ __init int intel_pmu_init(void)
> > x86_pmu.pebs_aliases = NULL;
> > x86_pmu.pebs_prec_dist = true;
> > x86_pmu.lbr_pt_coexist = true;
> > - x86_pmu.pebs_capable = ~0ULL;
> > x86_pmu.flags |= PMU_FL_HAS_RSP_1;
> > x86_pmu.flags |= PMU_FL_PEBS_ALL;
> > x86_pmu.get_event_constraints = glp_get_event_constraints;
> > @@ -6291,7 +6290,6 @@ __init int intel_pmu_init(void)
> > x86_pmu.pebs_aliases = NULL;
> > x86_pmu.pebs_prec_dist = true;
> > x86_pmu.pebs_block = true;
> > - x86_pmu.pebs_capable = ~0ULL;
> > x86_pmu.flags |= PMU_FL_HAS_RSP_1;
> > x86_pmu.flags |= PMU_FL_NO_HT_SHARING;
> > x86_pmu.flags |= PMU_FL_PEBS_ALL;
> > @@ -6337,7 +6335,6 @@ __init int intel_pmu_init(void)
> > x86_pmu.pebs_aliases = NULL;
> > x86_pmu.pebs_prec_dist = true;
> > x86_pmu.pebs_block = true;
> > - x86_pmu.pebs_capable = ~0ULL;
> > x86_pmu.flags |= PMU_FL_HAS_RSP_1;
> > x86_pmu.flags |= PMU_FL_NO_HT_SHARING;
> > x86_pmu.flags |= PMU_FL_PEBS_ALL;
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/ds.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/ds.c
> > index ba60427caa6d..e2da643632b9 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/ds.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/ds.c
> > @@ -2258,6 +2258,7 @@ void __init intel_ds_init(void)
> > x86_pmu.drain_pebs = intel_pmu_drain_pebs_icl;
> > x86_pmu.pebs_record_size = sizeof(struct pebs_basic);
> > if (x86_pmu.intel_cap.pebs_baseline) {
> > + x86_pmu.pebs_capable = ~0ULL;
>
> The two features of "Extended PEBS (about pebs_capable)" and "Adaptive PEBS
> (about pebs_baseline)"
> are orthogonal, although the two are often supported together.
The SDM explicitly states that PEBS Baseline implies Extended PEBS. See
3-19.8 (April 22 edition).
The question is if there is hardware that has Extended PEBS but doesn't
have Baseline; and I simply don't know and was hoping Kan could find
out.
That said; the above patch can be further improved by also removing the
PMU_FL_PEBS_ALL lines, which is already set by intel_ds_init().
In general though; the point is, we shouldn't be doing the FMS table
thing for discoverable features. Having pebs_capable = ~0 and
PMU_FL_PEBS_ALL on something with BASELINE set is just wrong.
