Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Sender: Ingo Molnar <mingo.kernel.org@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 Jan 2023 12:33:05 +0100
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
        "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        "ak@linux.intel.com" <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org" <linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "kan.liang@linux.intel.com" <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf/x86/rapl: Add support for Intel Meteor Lake
Message-ID: <Y7gG8R8ZRWTXYSGq@gmail.com>
References: <20230104145831.25498-1-rui.zhang@intel.com>
 <25d07838-3904-a086-4238-f56c9424b53a@intel.com>
 <ea9186869cca50a21efcc1a9cc4dbe5adcd1784b.camel@intel.com>
 <Y7aejeHDpLlwwYbr@zn.tnic>
 <4cc5cd868b20366fc9d4bf157656e0c295074282.camel@intel.com>
 <Y7f6RhF8FuK9R399@zn.tnic>
 <Y7f+UqN5qqfJUeoy@gmail.com>
 <Y7gB+uVpSJAQ6p+9@zn.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y7gB+uVpSJAQ6p+9@zn.tnic>
Precedence: bulk


* Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 11:56:18AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > It's a trade-off in any case: there's a point where quirk flags or even 
> > feature flags become harder to read and harder to maintain than cleanly 
> > separated per model driver functions.
> 
> Yeah, no, singular: a synthetic feature *flag*: X86_FEATURE_RAPL.
> 
> cpu/intel.c can set it and driver can test it.
> 
> Everything else inside the driver.
> 
> Until Intel can get their act together and actually do a CPUID bit like AMD. :-P
> 
> But when you think about it, whether the model matching happens in the driver or
> in cpu/intel.c doesn't matter a whole lot.
> 
> All that matters is, they should finally give it a CPUID bit.

The other thing that matters here are the RAPL *incompatibilities* between 
model variants, which are significant AFAICS.

With a CPUID we get a kind of semi-compatible hardware interface with well 
defined semantics & expansion.

With 'non-architectural', per-model RAPL features we get very little of 
that...

Which is why it's a trade-off that is hard to judge in advance: maybe we 
can simplify the code via a synthethic CPUID[s], maybe it will just be 
another zoo of per-model feature flags...

Likely won't be able to tell for sure until we see patches.

Thanks,

	Ingo