[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100610161234.GA5255@nowhere>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:12:37 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Zhang Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] perf: Provide a proper stop action for software
events
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 01:10:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 12:46 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > Something like the below would work, the only 'problem' is that it grows
> > hw_perf_event.
>
> If we do the whole PAUSEd thing right, we'd not need this I think.
It's not needed, and moreover software_pmu:stop/start() can be the same
than software:pmu:disable/enable() without the need to add another check
in the fast path.
But we need perf_event_stop/start() to work on software events. And in fact
now that we use the hlist_del_init, it's safe, but a bit wasteful in
the period reset path. That's another problem that is not critical, but
if you want to solve this by ripping the differences between software and
hardware (which I agree with), we need a ->reset_period callback.
--
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