Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:03:50 +0200 | Subject | Re: [RFC -tip] perf, x86: Add PERF_COUNT_HW_NMI_WATCHDOG event v2 | From | Stephane Eranian <> |
| |
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> wrote: > 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? > No, first level in watchdog.c, the other callback has to be implemented from x86_pmu as you had it.
> 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/
| |