[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110328095223.76e4debe@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:52:23 +0100
From: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>,
Corey Ashford <cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"2nddept-manager@....hitachi.co.jp"
<2nddept-manager@....hitachi.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [RFC] perf: EBNF for event syntax
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:58:10 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> Groups are most useful in measuring events on another base, which is
> basically mandatory if your primary event doesn't have sampling
> support itself.
Just FYI...
When I was looking at group event support for SH (because the hardware
doesn't have sampling support) I was trying to avoid the user being
required to setup the groups on the command-line, e.g. I wrote it so
that the group event creation was all done "behind the scenes".
For those architectures/platforms that are missing sampling support I
still think that group event creation should be as invisible as
possible.
--
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