[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7c86c4470908121354q33a82914x6cf63eb375b6fb59@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:54:31 +0200
From: stephane eranian <eranian@...glemail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
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 PERF_SAMPLE_GROUP
Hi,
Another thing that occurred to me while using PERF_SAMPLE_GROUP
is about that unique ID which you get out of read() with PERF_FORMAT_ID.
That number if generated by the kernel and it is a globally incrementing
64-bit counter.
An application may not get subsequent numbers even though it is issuing
perf_open_counter() in sequence. Another applications may cause the
number to change.
I believe this is not very convenient because imagine in your signal handler
you parse the GROUP and you want to relate id to the event. You need
to have a lookup table.
I believe it would be more convenient if the tool could pass a 64-bit number
itself when the event is created. It would get it back as part of
PERF_SAMPLE_GROUP.
The id could then be more related to the tool's data structure, no need for a
lookup table, overall more efficient. If I recall, this is what
epoll() can do and
this is very convenient.
--
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