[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1337351857.573.47.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 16:37:37 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf: Add persistent event facilities
On Fri, 2012-05-18 at 16:21 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 04:14:22PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-05-18 at 16:09 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > What happens here if a second user wants to enable a second set of
> > > persistent events, allocate a second set of per-CPU buffers?
> >
> > I'm not seeing the relation to VM_SHARED here.
>
> Well, in the sense that if mmap fails in the !VM_SHARED case, I can't
> enable any persistent events except the ones which are enabled and so
> I need to allocate another set of resources for that second persistent
> events user.
Right, well, you could actually allow operations on the fd, just not a
second mapping :-)
Anyway.. I'd push that error back to the user. If they need a second
set, let them create it.
Do you really need multiple consumers for your MCE stuff? If so, what
would be the problem of using VM_SHARED?
--
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