On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 17:18 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 03:56:41PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 15:45 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > >
> > > > > That requires to know in advance if we have hardware pmu
> > > > > in the list though (can be a flag in the group).
> > > >
> > > > Good point, but your proposed hw_check_constraint() call needs to know
> > > > the exact same.
> > >
> > >
> > > True. Whatever model we use anyway, both implement the same idea.
> >
> > Hmm, we seem to already have that problem (which would indicate another
> > bug in the hw-breakpoint stuff), how do you deal with
> > hw_perf_{enable,disable}() for the breakpoints?
>
>
> We don't have ordering constraints for breakpoints, only constraints
> on the number of available registers.
>
> So we check the constraints when a breakpoint registers. The
> enable/disable then (is supposed to) always succeed on breakpoint
> pmu, except for flexible breakpoints that can make it or not,
> but no need to overwrite group scheduling for that.
hw_perf_{enable,disable} are unrelated to groups.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout its 18-year history, RSA Conference consistently attracts the
world's best and brightest in the field, creating opportunities for Conference
attendees to learn about information security's most important issues through
interactions with peers, luminaries and emerging and established companies.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsaconf-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
perfmon2-devel mailing list
perfmon2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/perfmon2-devel
