From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754558Ab0ARQSn (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:18:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754355Ab0ARQSm (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:18:42 -0500 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.157]:25163 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753302Ab0ARQSl (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:18:41 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=KxS/n6xK9k/Ot8f7FabgwM8igq/FO40vGAEKQfEQZ8msjtiHpmOzNBxF/ibrACJpry gLvdLPS9j+3HaH8sY2XYVUT8zpKYxGOeujpRYfuiy6el5TLUfBPn+faf/yCsQQQ9sqys hA7TwySO2QvQK6jfKhwcqACsTVE8eZpuvSKQs= Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:18:38 +0100 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Stephane Eranian , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, paulus@samba.org, davem@davemloft.net, perfmon2-devel@lists.sf.net, eranian@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf_events: improve x86 event scheduling (v5) Message-ID: <20100118161836.GG10364@nowhere> References: <4b5430c6.0f975e0a.1bf9.ffff85fe@mx.google.com> <20100118134324.GB10364@nowhere> <1263822898.4283.558.camel@laptop> <20100118142004.GD10364@nowhere> <1263825158.4283.590.camel@laptop> <20100118144556.GE10364@nowhere> <1263826601.4283.603.camel@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1263826601.4283.603.camel@laptop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 03:56:41PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 15:45 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > > > That requires to know in advance if we have hardware pmu > > > > in the list though (can be a flag in the group). > > > > > > Good point, but your proposed hw_check_constraint() call needs to know > > > the exact same. > > > > > > True. Whatever model we use anyway, both implement the same idea. > > Hmm, we seem to already have that problem (which would indicate another > bug in the hw-breakpoint stuff), how do you deal with > hw_perf_{enable,disable}() for the breakpoints? We don't have ordering constraints for breakpoints, only constraints on the number of available registers. So we check the constraints when a breakpoint registers. The enable/disable then (is supposed to) always succeed on breakpoint pmu, except for flexible breakpoints that can make it or not, but no need to overwrite group scheduling for that.