[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8bd0f97a0906120513u4e823460t8192f00fd0460ab@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:13:06 -0400
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts/checksyscalls.sh: only whine perf_counter_open
when supported
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 08:05, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org> wrote:
>> If the port does not support HAVE_PERF_COUNTERS, then they can't
>> support the perf_counter_open syscall either. Rather than forcing
>> everyone to add an ignore (or suffer the warning until they get
>> around to implementing support), only whine about the syscall when
>> applicable.
>
> No, this patch is wrong - it's really easy to add support: just hook
> up the syscall. This should happen for every architecture really, so
> the warning is correct and it should not be patched out.
>
> PMU support is not required to get perfcounters support: if an
> architecture hooks up the syscall it will get generic software
> counters and the tools will work as well.
>
> Profiling falls back to a hrtimer-based sampling method - this is a
> much better fallback than oprofile's fall-back to the timer tick.
> This hrtimer based sampling is dynticks/nohz-correct and can go
> beyond HZ if the architecture supports hrtimers.
if there is generic support available, why must every arch select
HAVE_PERF_COUNTERS in their Kconfig ?
-mike
--
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