[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071113222534.GC17145@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:25:34 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@....hp.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, akpm@...l.org,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>, gregkh@...e.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, perfmon@...ali.hpl.hp.com,
William Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>,
perfmon2-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [perfmon] Re: [perfmon2] perfmon2 merge news
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@...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