[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20081204.192650.193940655.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:26:50 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: arjan@...radead.org
Cc: paulus@...ba.org, tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...e.hu, eranian@...glemail.com, dada1@...mosbay.com,
robert.richter@....com, hpa@...or.com, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/3] performance counters: documentation
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 18:50:02 -0800
> I would like to respectfully disagree with this some. The kernel needs
> to abstract hardware to some degree for userspace. The problem in this
> case is that userspace can't really do a better job, in fact it can
> only do a worse job since it lacks the coordination capability of
> knowing it has full control of all the hardware registers.
The perfmon context abstraction dealt with that. Code using the
perfmon interfaces provided a set of counter and control register
values to the kernel.
The kernel merely loaded and unloaded them when a process (or group of
processes) ran.
The kernel is a validity checker, and that minimal stuff is exactly
what the perfmon kernel component implemented.
--
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