From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755153Ab0CERjR (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:39:17 -0500 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:45403 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752120Ab0CERjP (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:39:15 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf: Walk through the relevant events only From: Peter Zijlstra To: Frederic Weisbecker Cc: LKML , Ingo Molnar , Paul Mackerras , Steven Rostedt , Masami Hiramatsu , Jason Baron , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo In-Reply-To: <20100305173342.GE5244@nowhere> References: <1267772426-5944-1-git-send-regression-fweisbec@gmail.com> <1267772426-5944-2-git-send-regression-fweisbec@gmail.com> <1267781969.16716.55.camel@laptop> <20100305170331.GB5244@nowhere> <1267809629.4942.0.camel@laptop> <20100305173342.GE5244@nowhere> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:39:12 +0100 Message-ID: <1267810752.4942.5.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 18:33 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:20:29PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 18:03 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > > > Now isn't the problem more in the fact that most of the swevents > > > should be tracepoints? > > > > No, different interface, and I don't want to require TRACE=y, I already > > utterly hate that x86 requires PERF=y. > > > > This could be reduced to the strict minimum, say CONFIG_TRACEPOINT > and some code around just to support the event ids. Can't, software events already are an ABI so we'll have to support that forever, but sure you can make something that reduces to the current software event callback on TRACE=n and maps to the right software event id when TRACE=y. > Software events could be made optionals too. Sure, but they're nowhere near as much code as tracepoints. > > I already > > utterly hate that x86 requires PERF=y. > > > Me too, and it's my bad, so me double too. Sometimes I think > we should make BREAKPOINTs optional, default y. I just don't know > if something like this that has always been builtin can be made > optional. Simply for build testing that would be useful, we could make it an embedded switch.