[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1277921488.1868.115.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 20:11:28 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
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>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
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 00/11] perf pmu interface -v2
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 10:19 -0700, Corey Ashford wrote:
> However, there still are concerns relative to writing these control
> registers from an interrupt handler because of the latency that will be
> incurred, however slow we choose to do the event rotation. So at least
> for the Wire-Speed processor, we may need a worker thread of some sort
> to hand off the work to.
Right, once we have per-pmu contexts we can look at having means to
over-ride the means of rotation, such that the pmu can optionally drive
it itself instead of through the common tick.
--
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