[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131009060228.GB7664@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:02:28 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] x86: Allow disabling HW_BREAKPOINTS and PERF_EVENTS
* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 10:05:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 09:55:59PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > 1) make breakpoints independant from perf. The drawback is that we must then
> > > add seperate hooks on context switch for ptrace breakpoints. OTOH we get
> > > rid of the perf -> breakpoint -> perf circular dependency, which is the very
> > > controversial thing.
> >
> > we used to have this in __switch_to_xtra(), right?
>
> Right.
>
> And then it got replaced by perf events scheduling.
Which we have anyway - so this moved complexity out the contex switch
path, for the common case where no hardware-breakpoints are used.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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