[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] perf_events: improve x86 event scheduling (v5)
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 02:24:49PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hrmph, so I read some of that hw_breakpoint stuff, and now I'm sorta
> confused, it looks like ->enable should never fail, but that means you
> cannot overcommit breakpoints, which doesn't fit the perf model nicely.

Yeah :)
I described this in my previous mail to you. Breakpoint events, for
now, are not supposed to fail on enable().

But once we have the strict pinned -> flexible ordering,
I'll rework this.

> Also, I see you set an ->unthrottle, but then don't implement it, but
> comment it as todo, which is strange because that implies its broken. If
> there's an ->unthrottle method it will throttle, so if its todo, the
> safest thing is to not set it.

Yeah, that's because I have a too vague idea on what is the purpose
of the unthrottle() callback.

I've read the concerned codes that call this, several times, and I still
can't figure out what happens there, not sure what is meant by throttle
or unthrottle there :-/

> /me mutters something and goes look at something else for a while.

Yeah, that's still a young code that needs improvement :)

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-01-19 16:57    [W:0.102 / U:4.260 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site