[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <C2D7FE5348E1B147BCA15975FBA23075F44CAFF9@IN01WEMBXA.internal.synopsys.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:28:43 +0000
From: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@...opsys.com>,
Aabid Rushdi <Aabid.Rushdi@...opsys.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org" <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>,
"dvhart@...ux.intel.com" <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
"dsahern@...il.com" <dsahern@...il.com>,
"acme@...hat.com" <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] perf: fix building for ARCv1
On Monday 19 October 2015 11:20 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com> writes:
>> But this user space - so IMHO UP/SMP doesn't matter and we can't simulate them in
>> C just by itself.
> It matters when you access the perf ring buffer which is updated by kernel.
That's part of the problem. The issue is with atomic_* APIs proliferation in perf
user space code which assumes native atomix r-m-w support which is not always
true. So I think we still need a feature detection mechanism and if absent leave
the ball in arch court by calling arch_atomic_* which can use creative or half
working measures so perf will work to some extent atleast and not bomb outright.
Also can u please elaborate a bit on "simulate them in C" - u mean just simple
unprotected LD, OP, ST or do u fancy usage of futex etc?
> Also perf is now multi threaded to some degree.
--
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