Re: [PATCH] perf_events: improve x86 event scheduling (v5)
From: Frederic Weisbecker
Date: Tue Jan 19 2010 - 10:55:23 EST
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 02:24:49PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hrmph, so I read some of that hw_breakpoint stuff, and now I'm sorta
> confused, it looks like ->enable should never fail, but that means you
> cannot overcommit breakpoints, which doesn't fit the perf model nicely.
I described this in my previous mail to you. Breakpoint events, for
now, are not supposed to fail on enable().
But once we have the strict pinned -> flexible ordering,
I'll rework this.
> Also, I see you set an ->unthrottle, but then don't implement it, but
> comment it as todo, which is strange because that implies its broken. If
> there's an ->unthrottle method it will throttle, so if its todo, the
> safest thing is to not set it.
Yeah, that's because I have a too vague idea on what is the purpose
of the unthrottle() callback.
I've read the concerned codes that call this, several times, and I still
can't figure out what happens there, not sure what is meant by throttle
or unthrottle there :-/
> /me mutters something and goes look at something else for a while.
Yeah, that's still a young code that needs improvement :)
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/