Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf_events: add event constraints support for Intel processors

[stephane eranian]

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> * David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> From: stephane eranian <eranian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 14:31:58 +0200
>>
>> > What PPC does is probably the only way to do this given the interface between
>> > generic and machine-specific code. The one advantage I see is that it works
>> > inside an event group but also across event groups because that code does not
>> > look at group boundary, it only looks at the events and the number of available
>> > registers. The downside is that you duplicate state.
>> >
>> > Did I get this right, Paul?
>>
>> That's basically how his code works, yes. ÂI intend on duplicating it
>> to some extent on sparc64 since I'm operating in a similar problem
>> space.
>>
>> So if at least some of this engine went to a generic place, there'd be
>> at least a 3rd user :-)
>
> Yeah, i'd definitely suggest to generalize this. We've missed updating
> PowerPC lowlevel details a couple of times in perf core updates, just
> because it's in a non-obvious place. Even if it's used by just a single
> arch, generic code is much more visible.
>

It is not clear how you can do this without creating a monster.
As I said the constraints can be far more difficult than just
event X => allowed_counter_bitmask.
--
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/