Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 17 Jul 2015 17:11:36 +0100 | From | Mark Rutland <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/9] perf/x86: Add is_hardware_event |
| |
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:47:26PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:03:36PM +0100, Liang, Kan wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 09:33:45PM +0100, kan.liang@intel.com wrote: > > > > From: Kan Liang <kan.liang@intel.com> > > > > > > > > Using is_hardware_event to replace !is_software_event to indicate a > > > > hardware event. > > > > > > Why...? > > > > First, the comments of is_software_event is not correct. > > 0 or !is_software_event is not for a hardware event. > > is_hardware_event is for a hardware event. > > Circular logic is fantastic.
Sorry for the snark here. I completely misread this.
I agree that the comment is wrong. However, changing !is_software_event to is_hardware_event is not always correct.
For example, perf_group_attach tests for the addition of a non-software event to a software group, so we can mark the group as not consisting solely of software events. For that to be done correctly, we need to check !is_software_event.
I was wrong about the throttling, having confused active_oncpu and nr_active. Sorry for the noise on that. However, as you mention that does prevent the use of exclusive events for uncore PMUs, and I don't see why that should change.
Thanks, Mark.
| |