From: peterz@infradead.org (Peter Zijlstra)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] arm/pmu: Reject groups spanning multiple hardware PMUs
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 14:00:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150310130041.GC11574@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150310125351.GD2896@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 01:53:51PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > It would be nicer if we could prevent this in the core so we're not
> > reliant on every PMU driver doing the same verification. My initial
> > thought was that seemed like unnecessary duplication of the ctx checking
> > above, but if we're going to end up shoving it into several drivers
> > anyway perhaps it's the lesser evil.
>
> Again, agreed, that would be better and less error prone. But I'm not
> entirely sure how to go about doing it :/ I'll have to go think about
> that; and conferences are not the best place for that.
>
> Suggestions on that are welcome of course ;)
So the problem is that event_init() is what will return the pmu, so we
cannot make decisions on it until after that returns.
Maybe we can pull out the validate step into its own funciton;
pmu->validate() or whatnot, to be called slightly later.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Suzuki Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>,
"linux@arm.linux.org.uk" <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
"acme@kernel.org" <acme@kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Punit Agrawal <Punit.Agrawal@arm.com>,
Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm/pmu: Reject groups spanning multiple hardware PMUs
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 14:00:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150310130041.GC11574@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150310125351.GD2896@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 01:53:51PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > It would be nicer if we could prevent this in the core so we're not
> > reliant on every PMU driver doing the same verification. My initial
> > thought was that seemed like unnecessary duplication of the ctx checking
> > above, but if we're going to end up shoving it into several drivers
> > anyway perhaps it's the lesser evil.
>
> Again, agreed, that would be better and less error prone. But I'm not
> entirely sure how to go about doing it :/ I'll have to go think about
> that; and conferences are not the best place for that.
>
> Suggestions on that are welcome of course ;)
So the problem is that event_init() is what will return the pmu, so we
cannot make decisions on it until after that returns.
Maybe we can pull out the validate step into its own funciton;
pmu->validate() or whatnot, to be called slightly later.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-10 13:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-09 12:46 [PATCH 0/3] [4.0] arm/arm64: Do not group hardware events from different PMUs Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-09 12:46 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-09 12:46 ` [PATCH 1/3] arm/pmu: Reject groups spanning multiple hardware PMUs Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-09 12:46 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-10 11:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-03-10 11:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-03-10 12:00 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-10 12:00 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-10 12:05 ` Mark Rutland
2015-03-10 12:05 ` Mark Rutland
2015-03-10 12:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-03-10 12:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-03-10 13:00 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2015-03-10 13:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-03-10 13:57 ` Mark Rutland
2015-03-10 13:57 ` Mark Rutland
2015-03-10 14:05 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-10 14:05 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-10 15:09 ` Mark Rutland
2015-03-10 15:09 ` Mark Rutland
2015-03-10 15:36 ` Mark Rutland
2015-03-10 15:36 ` Mark Rutland
2015-03-10 15:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-03-10 15:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-03-09 12:46 ` [PATCH 2/3] arm64/pmu: Reject groups spanning multiple HW PMUs Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-09 12:46 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-09 12:46 ` [PATCH 3/3] arm-cci: " Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-09 12:46 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-03-17 18:14 [PATCHv2 0/3] [4.0] arm/arm64: Do not group hardware events from different PMUs Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-17 18:14 ` [PATCH 1/3] arm/pmu: Reject groups spanning multiple hardware PMUs Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-09 12:43 [PATCH 0/3] [4.0] arm/arm64: Do not group hardware events from different PMUs a
2015-03-09 12:43 ` [PATCH 1/3] arm/pmu: Reject groups spanning multiple hardware PMUs a
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150310130041.GC11574@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.