[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100629180745.GA11967@nowhere>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:07:47 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: paulus <paulus@...ba.org>,
stephane eranian <eranian@...glemail.com>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Deng-Cheng Zhu <dengcheng.zhu@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 09/11] perf: Default PMU ops
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 06:34:10PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 17:03 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > You mean, if (!pmu->start_txn && pmu->pmu_enable) { /* install defaults
> > > */ } ?
> >
> >
> > Not really. pmu_*able and txn are there for different purposes.
> > A pmu implementation may want to provide enable/disable things
> > but not require any txn. Or one may just not need any of those,
> > like software events.
> >
> > It should simply map to a nop if nothing is provided.
>
> Thing is, using at least the pmu_enable/disable fallback when no txn
> methods are provided can save bunch of hardware writes. So this trivial
> fallback makes sense.
In this case, archs should handle that by implementing their txn.
neglected pmu implementations shouldn't impact software pmus.
--
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