[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091118193927.GA30470@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:39:27 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ia64 support for tools/perf/
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 09:25 -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > > Btw., are you planning HAVE_PERF_EVENTS support for IA64? (It's nice
> > > stuff, i can only recommend it! ;-)
> >
> > My first goal is getting the s/w events hooked up and working. I'm
> > still wondering about how to get the h/w counters to co-exist with
> > perfmon (which has been part of ia64 API for many years).
>
> A first approach could be to make them mutually exclusive at runtime.
> When there's a perf_event user, perfmon users get FAIL and vs.
>
> This is basically the state for x86 perf_event vs oprofile atm.
Yep, this is probably the least intrusive approach. Mixing the
implementations beyond trivial exclusion would probably be pain.
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