[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54FEDCF1.7020405@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 12:00:49 +0000
From: "Suzuki K. Poulose" <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
"linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Punit Agrawal <Punit.Agrawal@....com>,
Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm/pmu: Reject groups spanning multiple hardware
PMUs
On 10/03/15 11:27, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 12:46:30PM +0000, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
>> From: "Suzuki K. Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@....com>
>>
>> Don't allow grouping hardware events from different PMUs
>> (eg. CCI + CPU).
>
> Uhm, how does this work? If we have multiple hardware PMUs we'll stop
> scheduling events after the first failed event schedule. This can leave
> one of the PMUs severely under utilized.
This is done from pmu->event_init(), where we haven't scheduled an
event yet. Do you think we need to solve it using a different approach
? What is the best way to handle this situation ? Is it OK
to allow different PMUs in the group ?
Suzuki
>
--
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