linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/7] perf: kill perf_event

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:31:00 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
	Dave P Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] perf: kill perf_event_context::pmu

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 05:56:51PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Another option would be to have a context per-pmu. Each context's pmu
> pointer would be valid, and (other than the case of software events) it
> doesn't make sense to place events from disparate PMUs into the same
> group anyway. Then you don't need a fixed sized pmu list in the context
> or some arcane list structs.

No it does make sense; for example on hardware that doesn't have a PMI
you can create a software event + hardware event group and have the
software interrupt read the hardware counter and still get 'some'
sampling.
--
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/