On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 09:16 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2012-07-27 at 13:53 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > Bloating the interface for something that is already well > > > > possible is. > > > > > > There's no 'bloat' worth speaking off: a single bit out of > > > an already allocated bitmap, plus a single check in an > > > already existing loop, > > > > Uhm, no. The existing prctl() loop is over the fd's the task > > owns, you want a loop over the fd's that monitor you. This > > needs new prctl()s at the very least. > > We could add a new prctl if you think, but I thought to not > complicate it and offer it as a simple extension of the > semantics to loop over active events. No existing binary's > behavior will change.
It muddles up the semantics of the existing prctl()s though. Ideally we'd simply remove the current ones though, I don't think anybody actually uses them and as an owner you actually have all the fds to call ioctl() on. This would let us get rid of the entire event->owner, event->owner_entry and task->perf_event_list mess. See perf_event_exit_task() and perf_release() for why I'd love that crap to go away. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-perf-users" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
