---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: stephane eranian <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: [patch] Performance Counters for Linux, v3
To: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
Cc: Vince Weaver <[email protected]>, Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>,
[email protected], Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>,
Andrew Morton <[email protected]>, Eric Dumazet
<[email protected]>, Robert Richter <[email protected]>, Arjan
van de Veen <[email protected]>, Peter Anvin <[email protected]>, Paul
Mackerras <[email protected]>, "David S. Miller" <[email protected]>
Hi,
Given the level of abstractions you are using for the API, and given
your argument
that the kernel can do the HW resource scheduling better than anybody else.
What happens in the following test case:
- 2-way system (cpu0, cpu1)
- on cpu0, two processes P1, P2, each self-monitoring and counting event E1.
Event E1 can only be measured on counter C1.
- on cpu1, there is a cpu-wide session, monitoring event E1, thus using C1
- the scheduler decides to migrate P1 onto CPU1. You now have a
conflict on C1.
How is this managed?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help
pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/
_______________________________________________
perfmon2-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/perfmon2-devel
