Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:53:27 +0400 | From | Cyrill Gorcunov <> | Subject | Re: [RFC -tip] perf, x86: Add PERF_COUNT_HW_NMI_WATCHDOG event v2 |
| |
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 01:44:36PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 03:07:06PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 01:54:39PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > >> ... > >> > > > >> > > No new hidden event, just a x86_pmu + a per-arch callbacks. > >> > > >> > Looks quite good for me, Don? (i'll cook some draft patch for review meanwhile). > >> > > >> > Cyrill > >> > >> Since we are going to make __weak linking anyway maybe something like below > >> fit even beter? (untested) > > > > I don't think the compiler knows what platform you are running on and may > > just blindly link your new p4 function for all x86s, which is probably not > > what you want. > > > Don, is right. You need the level of indirection I had in my outline patch. > > You also don't need the: > + if (wd_attr->type != PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE || > + wd_attr->attr.config != PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES) > + return; > > In the p4 callback given you know your coming in for the watchdog. >
Yes, that is why in __weak implementation I dropped it. So guys, what we stick with -- __weak with second level indirection?
Cyrill -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |