In message <alpine.lrh.2.00.0904070926001.17...@vixen.sonytel.be> you wrote: > On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Michael Neuling wrote: > > In message <alpine.lrh.2.00.0904061430090.11...@vixen.sonytel.be> you wrote : > > > On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Kumar Gala wrote: > > > > On Apr 3, 2009, at 7:08 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > >Finally (after ca. 1.5 years), he're an updated version of my patch to k= > > > eep > > > > >track of emulated instructions. In the light of Kumar's `Emulate enou gh= > > > of > > > > >SPE > > > > >instructions to make gcc happy' patch, he probably also wants to keep tr= > > > ack > > > > >of > > > > >the actual runtime overhead. > > > > > > > > > >Changes since last version: > > > > > - arch/powerpc/kernel/sysfs.c is now compiled on ppc32, so we can pro vi= > > > de > > > > > counters in sysfs on ppc32, too, > > > > > - WARN_EMULATED() is a no-op if CONFIG_SYSCTL is disabled, > > > > > - Add warnings for altivec, > > > > > - Add warnings for recently introduced emulation of vsx and isel > > > > > instructions. > > > > = > > > > > > > pretty cool. Do we think counters should be sysfs or debugfs? > > > > > > What do you prefer? > > > > > > On MIPS, unaligned exception handling control is in debugfs. > > > > Would per process counters be too hard? Stick them in the thread_struct > > and export them via /proc/<pid>/emulated. > > But they go away as soon as the process exits, right?
True. taskstats would be better then but you'd have to start touching generic code for that. Mikey _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
