[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:0.020 / U:5.160 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site