[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090826091642.GB7743@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:16:42 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: "K.Prasad" <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [Patch 0/1] HW-BKPT: Allow per-cpu kernel-space Hardware
Breakpoint requests
* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 04:28:11PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * K.Prasad <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Providing those would let us build a pmu struct on top of this
> > > > high level API, hopefully.
> >
> > Note that there's a PMU struct already in
> > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_counter.c. Could debug-register ops be
> > tacked on to it?
>
> No, we don't need to build an arch level pmu since the BP api
> already handles the arch abstraction (or well, it is planned to).
>
> Instead, what we need is a core pmu that relies on the BP api.
> Such pmu will be allocated dynamically while creating a hardware
> breakpoint counter.
i'm not convinced at all we need all that layering of
perfcounters->pmu->BP. Why not add BP support to the PMU abstraction
and be done with it?
That way we get hardware breakpoints via 'pinned, exclusive, per cpu
hw-breakpoint counters' for example and kernel/hw-breakpoint.c can
go away altogether.
kernel/perf_counter.c already handles scheduling, conflict
resolution, enumeration, syscall exposure and more.
Hm?
Ingo
--
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