[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1300283775.2203.1516.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 14:56:15 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] perf: Custom contexts
On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 14:53 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:32:54PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Right, so I don't much like the interface, two new ioctl()s and a flag
> > of dubious use.
>
> Do you think we need a new syscall for this new feature.
No.
> > How important is this recursive nature of the thing to you:
> >
> > > It's supposed to support infinite combinations with starter having starters
> > > themselves, plus filters, etc...
> >
> > We've so far avoided recursion like that, we only have single level
> > groups etc.
>
> There is actually no recursivity of any sort that the kernel has to handle.
> The starter/stopper links are never handled recursively. ie: there is no
> loop walking through the entire chain of starter to starter to starter, etc...
>
> It's always only handled between direct related event: starter and target, but
> never further.
>
> Only the final effect has recursion properties in the resulting count
> or trace.
That's not an answer to my question.
--
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