linux-kernel - Re: [patch 02/24] perfmon: base code

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0811272031540.3325@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 27 Nov 2008 20:35:43 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	eranian@...il.com
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mingo@...e.hu, x86@...nel.org, andi@...stfloor.org,
	sfr@...b.auug.org.au
Subject: Re: [patch 02/24] perfmon: base code

Stephane,

On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, stephane eranian wrote:

> >> session is independent of each other. You can therefore measure different
> >> things on different CPUs. Reservation is thus done independently for each
> >> CPU, therefore we need a cpu bitmask  to track allocation.
> >
> > Ok. Question: if you do a one CPU wide session with perfom, can you
> > still do thread monitoring on the same CPU ?
> >
> No. They are currently mutually exclusive.
> 
> > If no, what prevents that a monitored thread is migrated to such a CPU ?
> >
> Nothing. AND you don't want to change affinity because you are monitoring.
> So the current restriction is that cpu-wide and per-thread are
> mutually exclusive.

And how is this achieved ? Currently there seems nothing which
prevents a per-thread vs. cpu-wide monitoring.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/