[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7c86c4470908240916r54fdece2y1fabbd2411ce2756@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:16:44 +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 enable_on_exec
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Peter Zijlstra<a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 18:03 +0200, stephane eranian wrote:
>
>> >> 2) enable_on_exec on !leader counters is undefined
>> >
>> > then fail it.
>
> Or make it work :-)
>
But what would that mean given how a group is made runnable?
>> In other words, I think timing_enabled is measuring the wrong thing.
>> It should be instead called time_runnable and it should measure the
>> time during which the event is runnable, i.e, its group is runnable. That
>> means the event (group) could be dispatched if PMU was "free".
>
> I tend to agree with you, but I'm hoping Paul will speak since he wrote
> both the time accounting and the enable_on_exec thing.
>
Fair enough.
--
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