lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] perf: fix the is_software_event() definition
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:53:36PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 12:13 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 15:12 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > > You need to also call pmu->disable() if it is a software event,
> > > because a breakpoint needs to be unregistered in hardware level
> > > too.
> >
> > breakpoint isn't a software pmu. But yeah, enable and disable need to
> > match.
>
> That is, it shouldn't be a software pmu, because we assume software
> events can always be scheduled, whereas that's definitely not so for the
> breakpoint one.
>
> Which seems to suggest the following
>
> ---
> Subject: perf: fix the is_software_event() definition
>
> When adding the breakpoint pmu Frederic forgot to exclude it from being
> a software event. While we're at it, make it an inclusive expression.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>



Agreed.

But then Stephane will need to update his patch and use
something else than is_software_event() to guess if an event
needs its pmu->enable/disable to be called.

A kind of helper that can tell: I am not handled by
hw_perf_group_sched_in()

But I suck too much in naming to propose something sane :)



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-01-18 13:11    [W:0.049 / U:0.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site