lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] perf_events: improve x86 event scheduling (v5)
From
Date
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 17:18 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 03:56:41PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 15:45 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > >
> > > > > That requires to know in advance if we have hardware pmu
> > > > > in the list though (can be a flag in the group).
> > > >
> > > > Good point, but your proposed hw_check_constraint() call needs to know
> > > > the exact same.
> > >
> > >
> > > True. Whatever model we use anyway, both implement the same idea.
> >
> > Hmm, we seem to already have that problem (which would indicate another
> > bug in the hw-breakpoint stuff), how do you deal with
> > hw_perf_{enable,disable}() for the breakpoints?
>
>
> We don't have ordering constraints for breakpoints, only constraints
> on the number of available registers.
>
> So we check the constraints when a breakpoint registers. The
> enable/disable then (is supposed to) always succeed on breakpoint
> pmu, except for flexible breakpoints that can make it or not,
> but no need to overwrite group scheduling for that.

hw_perf_{enable,disable} are unrelated to groups.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-01-18 17:29    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans