[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0907231555050.3509-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:56:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
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>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/5] perfcounter: Add support for kernel hardware
breakpoints
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Is there a limit to these hardware breakpoints? If so, the software
Certainly there's a limit. They require hardware resources, after all.
> > 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?
On x86, hardware breakpoints take virtual addresses. I don't know
about other architectures.
Alan Stern
--
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