[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:45:45 -0600
From: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To: eranian@...il.com
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Arjan van de Veen <arjan@...radead.org>,
Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [patch] Performance Counters for Linux, v3
stephane eranian wrote:
> What happens in the following test case:
>
> - 2-way system (cpu0, cpu1)
>
> - on cpu0, two processes P1, P2, each self-monitoring and counting event E1.
> Event E1 can only be measured on counter C1.
>
> - on cpu1, there is a cpu-wide session, monitoring event E1, thus using C1
>
> - the scheduler decides to migrate P1 onto CPU1. You now have a
> conflict on C1.
>
> How is this managed?
Prevent the load balancer from moving P1 onto cpu1?
Chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists