| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20140227114805.GG6945@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:48:05 +0000 From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> 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 25, 2014 at 11:31:00AM +0000, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > 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. Sure, I called out software events as an exception above. Does it ever make sense to group two hardware events for disparate hardware PMUs? Cheers, Mark. -- 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