[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1258056038.2140.354.camel@pasglop>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:00:38 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Prasad <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@....de>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] hw-breakpoints: Arbitrate access to pmu following
registers constraints
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 16:54 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > - On one embedded core at least we have a case where the core has 4
> > threads, but the data (4) and instruction (2) breakpoint registers are
> > shared. The 'enable' bits are split so a given data breakpoint can be
> > enabled only on some HW threads but that's about it.
> >
> > I'm not sure if there's a realistic way to handle the later constraint
> > though other than just not allowing use of the HW breakpoint function on
> > those cores at all.
> >
> > Ben.
>
>
> Yeah this latter one is tricky. Not sure how to handle it either.
> How are these hw-threads considered by the kernel core? As different
> cpu?
Yes.
So it basically looks like you have 4 data and 2 HW instruction breakpoint
registers shared by 4 CPUs in a group :-)
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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