Re: [PATCH] perf: fix the is_software_event() definition
From: Frederic Weisbecker
Date: Mon Jan 18 2010 - 07:07:58 EST
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:53:36PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 12:13 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 15:12 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > You need to also call pmu->disable() if it is a software event,
> > > because a breakpoint needs to be unregistered in hardware level
> > > too.
> > breakpoint isn't a software pmu. But yeah, enable and disable need to
> > match.
> That is, it shouldn't be a software pmu, because we assume software
> events can always be scheduled, whereas that's definitely not so for the
> breakpoint one.
> Which seems to suggest the following
> Subject: perf: fix the is_software_event() definition
> When adding the breakpoint pmu Frederic forgot to exclude it from being
> a software event. While we're at it, make it an inclusive expression.
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
But then Stephane will need to update his patch and use
something else than is_software_event() to guess if an event
needs its pmu->enable/disable to be called.
A kind of helper that can tell: I am not handled by
But I suck too much in naming to propose something sane :)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/