---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: stephane eranian <eran...@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: [patch] Performance Counters for Linux, v3
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijls...@chello.nl>
Cc: Vince Weaver <vi...@deater.net>, Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>,
linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, Eric Dumazet
<da...@cosmosbay.com>, Robert Richter <robert.rich...@amd.com>, Arjan
van de Veen <ar...@infradead.org>, Peter Anvin <h...@zytor.com>, Paul
Mackerras <pau...@samba.org>, "David S. Miller" <da...@davemloft.net>
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
perfmon2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/perfmon2-devel
