[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7c86c4470811271149m5f5556c0y468be509bb6a200@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 20:49:25 +0100
From: "stephane eranian" <eranian@...glemail.com>
To: "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>
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
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> 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.
>
That's true, but that's because cpu-wide support is not included in the
patchset.
--
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