Re: conflict between tickless and perfmon2

2007-11-23 Thread Stephane Eranian
Hello, On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 07:40:31PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 02:44 -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > We have identified a conflict between TICKLESS (CONFIG_NO_HZ) and > > > the current

Re: conflict between tickless and perfmon2

2007-11-23 Thread Stephane Eranian
Hello, On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 07:40:31PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 02:44 -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote: Hello, We have identified a conflict between TICKLESS (CONFIG_NO_HZ) and the current perfmon2

Re: [perfmon] Re: conflict between tickless and perfmon2

2007-11-14 Thread Stephane Eranian
Thomas, On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 07:40:31PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > It looks like a solution would be to change the implementation of > > > timeout-based switching to use HR timers instead. Similar to what is > > > done for ITIMER_REAL

Re: [perfmon] Re: conflict between tickless and perfmon2

2007-11-14 Thread Stephane Eranian
Thomas, On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 07:40:31PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote: It looks like a solution would be to change the implementation of timeout-based switching to use HR timers instead. Similar to what is done for ITIMER_REAL and

Re: conflict between tickless and perfmon2

2007-11-09 Thread Stephane Eranian
Thomas, On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 07:40:31PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > It looks like a solution would be to change the implementation of > > > timeout-based switching to use HR timers instead. Similar to what is > > > done for ITIMER_REAL and ITIMER_VIRTUAL. > > Using a hrtimer is

Re: conflict between tickless and perfmon2

2007-11-09 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 02:44 -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote: > > Hello, > > > > We have identified a conflict between TICKLESS (CONFIG_NO_HZ) and > > the current perfmon2 implementation. The problem impacts system-wide > > sessions using timeout-based

Re: conflict between tickless and perfmon2

2007-11-09 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 02:44 -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote: > Hello, > > We have identified a conflict between TICKLESS (CONFIG_NO_HZ) and > the current perfmon2 implementation. The problem impacts system-wide > sessions using timeout-based event set multiplexing. > > Event set multiplexing

conflict between tickless and perfmon2

2007-11-09 Thread Stephane Eranian
Hello, We have identified a conflict between TICKLESS (CONFIG_NO_HZ) and the current perfmon2 implementation. The problem impacts system-wide sessions using timeout-based event set multiplexing. Event set multiplexing allows monitoring tools to measure more events than there are actual

conflict between tickless and perfmon2

2007-11-09 Thread Stephane Eranian
Hello, We have identified a conflict between TICKLESS (CONFIG_NO_HZ) and the current perfmon2 implementation. The problem impacts system-wide sessions using timeout-based event set multiplexing. Event set multiplexing allows monitoring tools to measure more events than there are actual

Re: conflict between tickless and perfmon2

2007-11-09 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 02:44 -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote: Hello, We have identified a conflict between TICKLESS (CONFIG_NO_HZ) and the current perfmon2 implementation. The problem impacts system-wide sessions using timeout-based event set multiplexing. Event set multiplexing allows

Re: conflict between tickless and perfmon2

2007-11-09 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 02:44 -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote: Hello, We have identified a conflict between TICKLESS (CONFIG_NO_HZ) and the current perfmon2 implementation. The problem impacts system-wide sessions using timeout-based event set

Re: conflict between tickless and perfmon2

2007-11-09 Thread Stephane Eranian
Thomas, On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 07:40:31PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: It looks like a solution would be to change the implementation of timeout-based switching to use HR timers instead. Similar to what is done for ITIMER_REAL and ITIMER_VIRTUAL. Using a hrtimer is perfrectly