Re: [RFC] perf_events: support for uncore a.k.a. nest units

[Maynard Johnson]

Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 03/31/2010 09:01:56 AM:

> [image removed]
>
> Re: [RFC] perf_events: support for uncore a.k.a. nest units
>
> Peter Zijlstra
>
> to:
>
> Corey Ashford
>
> 03/31/2010 09:02 AM
>
> Cc:
>
> Lin Ming, Ingo Molnar, LKML, Andi Kleen, Paul Mackerras, Stephane
> Eranian, Frederic Weisbecker, Xiao Guangrong, Dan Terpstra, Philip
> Mucci, Maynard Johnson, cel, Steven Rostedt, Arnaldo Carvalho de
> Melo, Masami Hiramatsu
>
> On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 15:12 -0700, Corey Ashford wrote:
> >
> > > Initially I'd not allow per-pmu-per-task contexts
> > > because then things like perf_event_task_sched_out() would get rather
> > > complex.
> >
> > Definitely.  I don't think it makes sense to have per-task context on
> > nest/uncore PMUs.  At least we haven't found any justification for it.
>
> For uncore no, but there is also the hw-breakpoint stuff that is being
> presented as a pmu, for those it would make sense to have a separate
> per-task context.
hw-breakpoint presented as a pmu?  hmmmm.  IMHO, this is an example where
shoehorning something into the perf_events subsystem that logically doesn't
belong there just makes for more complexity in the code.
>
> But doing multiple per-task contexts is something for a next step
> indeed.
>
[snip]

--
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/