On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 16:12 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: >> > On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 15:55 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote: >> >> What's the point of CPU_ONLINE vs. CPU_STARTING if you're saying the >> >> former is never right? Why not move CPU_ONLINE to the right place and >> >> drop CPU_STARTING? >> > >> > Its right for a lot of things, just not for perf, we need to be ready >> > and done by the time the cpu starts scheduling. >> > >> You mean they need to wait until after the cpu starts scheduling? >> As opposed to being called just before it starts scheduling. > > As in it doesn't really matter for them, and the CPU_ONLINE call is > convenient in that it allows the callback to schedule too. > Fine, I will try your proposed patch tomorrow. A priori, it looks fine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ perfmon2-devel mailing list perfmon2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/perfmon2-devel
