[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1228566879.16244.4.camel@lappy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 13:34:39 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...glemail.com>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Arjan van de Veen <arjan@...radead.org>,
Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] [Announcement] Performance Counters for Linux
On Sat, 2008-12-06 at 11:05 +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Now, the tables in perfmon's user-land libpfm that describe the
> mapping from abstract events to event-selector values and the
> constraints on what events can be counted together come to nearly
> 29,000 lines of code just for the IBM 64-bit powerpc processors.
>
> Your API condemns us to adding all that bloat to the kernel, plus the
> code to use those tables.
Since you need those tables and that code anyway, and in a solid
reliable way, what is the objection of carrying it in the kernel?
Furthermore, is there a good technical reason these cpus are so
complicated to use?
--
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