[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100118120747.GG5256@nowhere>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:07:49 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, paulus@...ba.org,
davem@...emloft.net, perfmon2-devel@...ts.sf.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: fix the is_software_event() definition
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:53:36PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 12:13 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 15:12 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > > You need to also call pmu->disable() if it is a software event,
> > > because a breakpoint needs to be unregistered in hardware level
> > > too.
> >
> > breakpoint isn't a software pmu. But yeah, enable and disable need to
> > match.
>
> That is, it shouldn't be a software pmu, because we assume software
> events can always be scheduled, whereas that's definitely not so for the
> breakpoint one.
>
> Which seems to suggest the following
>
> ---
> Subject: perf: fix the is_software_event() definition
>
> When adding the breakpoint pmu Frederic forgot to exclude it from being
> a software event. While we're at it, make it an inclusive expression.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Agreed.
But then Stephane will need to update his patch and use
something else than is_software_event() to guess if an event
needs its pmu->enable/disable to be called.
A kind of helper that can tell: I am not handled by
hw_perf_group_sched_in()
But I suck too much in naming to propose something sane :)
--
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