Peter Zijlstra writes:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 06:41:48PM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
>> +static bool exclusive_event_ok(struct perf_event *event,
>> + struct perf_event_context *ctx)
>> +{
>> +struct perf_event *iter_event;
>> +
>> +if
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org writes:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 06:41:48PM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
+static bool exclusive_event_ok(struct perf_event *event,
+ struct perf_event_context *ctx)
+{
+struct perf_event *iter_event;
+
+if
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 06:41:48PM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> +static bool exclusive_event_ok(struct perf_event *event,
> + struct perf_event_context *ctx)
> +{
> + struct perf_event *iter_event;
> +
> + if (!(event->pmu->capabilities &
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 06:41:48PM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
+static bool exclusive_event_ok(struct perf_event *event,
+ struct perf_event_context *ctx)
+{
+ struct perf_event *iter_event;
+
+ if (!(event-pmu-capabilities PERF_PMU_CAP_EXCLUSIVE))
+
Usually, pmus that do, for example, instruction tracing, would only ever
be able to have one event per task per cpu (or per perf_context). For such
pmus it makes sense to disallow creating conflicting events early on, so
as to provide consistent behavior for the user.
This patch adds a pmu
Usually, pmus that do, for example, instruction tracing, would only ever
be able to have one event per task per cpu (or per perf_context). For such
pmus it makes sense to disallow creating conflicting events early on, so
as to provide consistent behavior for the user.
This patch adds a pmu
6 matches
Mail list logo
