[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E1C1CDD.9040005@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 13:07:25 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"acme@...stprotocols.net" <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf: add context field to perf_event
On 07/12/2011 01:03 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > Regarding LWP - I thought the intent was self-profiling by the process
> > for jits and the like? If you also use it for perf, won't it be
> > unusable for that? Also, can't the process interfere, from userspace,
> > by executing the unprivileged LWP instructions?
>
> Ingo made perf-integration a merge-requirement for LWP. It is not really
> well-suited for being integrated into perf because the design goal was
> easy and efficient self-profiling of tasks (like you stated). So
> integrating it into perf causes some pain. But lets see how it works
> out.
I don't think it's workable. Having do_mmap() called in the task's
context can change how it works. And the task being able to kill/modify
the profile, and not able to use LWP for itself, is a show stopper IMO.
--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.
--
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