Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/x86: Add Xenoprofile support for AMD Family 17h

[Gary R Hook <gary.hook@xxxxxxx>]

On 5/24/2017 1:43 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 23.05.17 at 23:51, <gary.hook@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 5/23/2017 4:46 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> > > On 05/23/2017 05:28 PM, Gary R Hook wrote:
> > > > Signed-off-by: Gary R Hook <gary.hook@xxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >    xen/arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c |    4 ++++
> > > >    1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c
> > b/xen/arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c
> > > > index 13534d491405..5ad48c12e515 100644
> > > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c
> > > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c
> > > > @@ -419,6 +419,10 @@ static int __init nmi_init(void)
> > > >                                 model = &op_athlon_spec;
> > > >                                 cpu_type = "x86-64/family16h";
> > > >                                 break;
> > > > +                       case 0x17:
> > > > +                                model = &op_amd_fam15h_spec;
> > > > +                               cpu_type = "x86-64/family17h";
> > > > +                               break;
> > > >                         }
> > > >                         break;
> > >
> > > Have you actually tried this? I don't know whether oprofile still works
> > > since corresponding kernel patches that I am aware of are at least 5
> > > years old.
> > Yes, I was getting a complaint during boot. That's why I did it. Works a
> > treat on my family 17 system :-)
> I think Boris meant more than just boot a system, i.e. whether you've
> actually used oprofile successfully with the change.
My interpretation of the state of oprofile is that it's stagnant. Fron
what I can tell, the future is 'perf'. I looked around, but could find 
nothing current for a project. Where does that leave us?
> Dealing with the
> "Initialization failed" message would not necessarily require properly
> installing handlers - we could also declare newer families unsupported
> and simply suppress the message in such cases. Note how on most
> Intel family 6 models code behaves in this very way.
That would be even better, IMHO. What would we like to do?

> Btw, please also note the indentation issue your patch has (spaces
> vs tabs).
I copied a line from above, which uses spaces. My bad, but the badly
formatted code has been there for a while.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel