[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19001.31402.236289.767105@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:22:18 +1000
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To: Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] perf_counter: powerpc: Enable use of software counters on 32-bit powerpc
Kumar Gala writes:
> On Jun 17, 2009, at 6:50 AM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > +config PPC_HAVE_PMU_SUPPORT
> > + bool
>
> what does this mean?
At the moment it means that arch/powerpc/kernel/perf_counters.c works
for at least some processors in the selected processor family.
> > +
> > +config PPC_PERF_CTRS
> > + def_bool y
> > + depends on PERF_COUNTERS && PPC_HAVE_PMU_SUPPORT
> > + help
> > + This enables the powerpc-specific perf_counter back-end.
>
> Can we distinguish between the two different architected perf counters
> programming models to start with. Maybe something like:
>
> PPC_BOOK3S_PERF_CTRS and PPC_BOOK3E_PERF_CTRS (or
> PPC_SERVER_PERF_CTRS / PPC_EMB_PERF_CTRS)
We can do that once we have code to support the Freescale embedded PMU
and we know how much of arch/powerpc/kernel/perf_counters.c is or
isn't useful there. We don't have to get to the final state in one
patch. I'd rather put this patch in as-is and then see a patch series
that adds the Freescale embedded PMU support and makes whatever
Kconfig changes are necessary later.
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