[lkml]   [2011]   [Aug]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [BUG] perf_event: semantic of PERF_SAMPLE_READ unclear
On Fri, 2011-08-26 at 14:02 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Peter Zijlstra <> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 19:19 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> But the difficulty is that
> >> we cannot grab any locks, not sure we need one given the call path.
> >
> > Nah we should be able to simply iterate all siblings and update them
> > in-place, since its group members they should all be co-scheduled. The
> > only difficulty is cross pmu group members..
> >
> Are we allowing event from different PMU to be in the same event group?
> If so, is that useful?

We allow software events, which can always be scheduled, to be part of a
hardware group. We don't allow mixing of different hardware pmus.

Allowing a software event is useful if for example the hardware pmu
doesn't have a sampling interrupt.

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-08-26 14:15    [W:0.054 / U:5.096 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site