lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jun]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-06-23 13:55    [W:0.179 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site