[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] perf_events: add event constraints support for Intel processors
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Ingo Molnar <> wrote:
> * David Miller <> wrote:
>> From: stephane eranian <>
>> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 14:31:58 +0200
>> > What PPC does is probably the only way to do this given the interface between
>> > generic and machine-specific code. The one advantage I see is that it works
>> > inside an event group but also across event groups because that code does not
>> > look at group boundary, it only looks at the events and the number of available
>> > registers. The downside is that you duplicate state.
>> >
>> > Did I get this right, Paul?
>> That's basically how his code works, yes.  I intend on duplicating it
>> to some extent on sparc64 since I'm operating in a similar problem
>> space.
>> So if at least some of this engine went to a generic place, there'd be
>> at least a 3rd user :-)
> Yeah, i'd definitely suggest to generalize this. We've missed updating
> PowerPC lowlevel details a couple of times in perf core updates, just
> because it's in a non-obvious place. Even if it's used by just a single
> arch, generic code is much more visible.

It is not clear how you can do this without creating a monster.
As I said the constraints can be far more difficult than just
event X => allowed_counter_bitmask.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-08 22:33    [W:0.105 / U:4.108 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site