Re: [perfmon] Re: [perfmon2] perfmon2 merge news

[Andi Kleen]

On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 02:22:34PM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Andi,
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 10:50:56PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > Yes, horribly more complicated because of locking issues within perfmon.
> > > As soon as you expose a file descriptor, you need some locking to prevent
> > > multiple user threads (malicious or not) to compete to access the PMU state.
> > 
> > Why do you need the file descriptor? 
> > 
> 
> To identify your monitoring session be it system-wide (i.e., per-cpu) or per-thread.
> file descriptor allows you to use close, read, select, poll and you leverage the

Surely that could be done with a flag for each call too? Keeping file descriptors
to pass essentially a boolean seems overkill.

> existing file descriptor sharing/inheritance sematics. At the kernel level, a 
> descriptor provides all the callback necessary to make sure you clean up the perfmon
> session state on exit.

Didn't you already have a thread destructor for it?

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/