[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1248371110.4681.1.camel@laptop>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:45:10 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Zhaolei <zhaolei@...fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
"K . Prasad" <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/5] perfcounter: Add support for kernel hardware
breakpoints
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 15:08 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 13:08 -0400, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > This adds the support for kernel hardware breakpoints in perfcounter.
> > It is added as a new type of software counter and can be defined by
> > using the counter number 5 and by passsing the address of the
> > breakpoint to set through the config attribute.
>
> Is there a limit to these hardware breakpoints? If so, the software
> counter model is not sufficient, since we assume we can always schedule
> all software counters. However if you were to add more counters than you
> have hardware breakpoints you're hosed.
Do the breakpoints work on virtual or physical addresses?
Also, do we have an 64bit architecture with split address-spaces?
--
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