[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18756.23327.478759.5970@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:02:23 +1100
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: eranian@...il.com, Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Arjan van de Veen <arjan@...radead.org>,
Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [patch] Performance Counters for Linux, v3
Peter Zijlstra writes:
> On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 18:42 +0100, stephane eranian wrote:
> > In fact, I know tools which do not even need a library.
>
> By your own saying, the problem solved by libperfmon is a hard problem
> (and I fully understand that).
>
> Now you say there is software out there that doesn't use libperfmon,
> that means they'll have to duplicate that functionality.
>
> And only commercial software has a clear gain by wastefully duplicating
> that effort. This means there is an active commercial interest to not
> make perfmon the best technical solution there is, which is contrary to
> the very thing Linux is about.
>
> What is worse, you defend that:
>
> > Go ask end-users what they think of that?
> >
> > You don't even need a library. All of this could be integrated into the tool.
> > New processor, just go download the updated version of the tool.
>
> No! what people want is their problem fixed - no matter how. That is one
> of the powers of FOSS, you can fix your problems in any way suitable.
>
> Would it not be much better if those folks duped into using a binary
> only product only had to upgrade their FOSS kernel, instead of possibly
> forking over more $$$ for an upgrade?
>
> You have just irrevocably proven to me this needs to go into the kernel,
> as the design of perfmon is little more than a GPL circumvention device
> - independent of whether you are aware of that or not.
I'm sorry, but that is a pretty silly argument.
By that logic, the kernel module loader should include an in-kernel
copy of gcc and binutils, and the fact that it doesn't proves that the
module loader is little more than a GPL circumvention device -
independent of whether you are aware of that or not. 8-)
Paul.
--
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