[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121029211615.GL2266@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:16:15 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch v1 04/10] perf/x86: add memory profiling via PEBS Load
Latency
> > Why do you need to replace the whole table?
> >
> Because I am extending them with one or two events based on cpu
> model. That was the easiest way of doing this instead of playing
> some kind of malloc+copy trick.
I did malloc and copy.
>
> > BTW I still think my approach in the v4 Haswell patchkit
> > is simpler and didn't rely on hardcoding these events.
> >
> I don't care about those events. As I found out, they are not even
> used by perf because they are all hardcoded and that's what gets
> used. I assume they are exposed for reference only. I don't object
> to that. But I think the right mechanism would be one where you
> can add events at boot time based on CPU model. It could be used
> to add the common events as well in the common part of the init
> code.
Yes that's what I did.
I don't think copying everything for everything new is a good
approach.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
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