[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1248713801.6987.1684.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:56:41 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: eranian@...il.com
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Maynard Johnson <mpjohn@...ibm.com>,
Carl Love <cel@...ibm.com>,
Corey J Ashford <cjashfor@...ibm.com>,
Philip Mucci <mucci@...s.utk.edu>,
Dan Terpstra <terpstra@...s.utk.edu>,
perfmon2-devel <perfmon2-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: perf_counters issue with self-sampling threads
On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 18:51 +0200, stephane eranian wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I believe there is a problem with the current perf_counters (PCL)
> code for self-sampling threads. The problem is related to sample
> notifications via signal.
>
> PCL (just like perfmon) is using SIGIO, an asynchronous signal,
> to notify user applications of the availability of data in the event
> buffer.
>
> POSIX does not mandate that asynchronous signals be delivered
> to the thread in which they originated. Any thread in the process
> may process the signal, assuming it does not have the signal
> blocked.
Bugger, you're right. /me kicks POSIX again for creating these crazy ass
semantics.
I'll look at fixing this.
Thanks!
--
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