Re: [perfmon] Re: [perfmon2] perfmon2 merge news

[Stephane Eranian <eranian@hpl.hp.com>]

David,

On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 05:08:43AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> 
> Instead of blabbering further about this topic, I decided to put my
> code where my mouth is and spent the weekend porting the perfmon2
> kernel bits, and the user bits (libpfm and pfmon) to sparc64.
> 

I appreciate your effort. I am glad to see that the interface
and implementation survived yet another architecture. I think at this
point ARM is the only major architecture missing. In anycase, I would
be happy to integrate your sparc64 patches.

> As a result I've found that perfmon2 is quite nice and allows
> incredibly useful and powerful tools to be written.  The syscalls
> aren't that bad and really I see not reason to block it's inclusion.
> 

As I said earlier, I am not opposed to changing the syscalls. I have
proposed a few schemes to address the issue of versioning. If vectors
arguments are problematic, we can go with single register/call.

I think there are other areas where perfmon2 could benefit from the
help of the LKML developers. I will post a list shortly.

> I rescind all of my earlier objections, let's merge this soon :-)

Thanks.

-- 
-Stephane