On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 03:36:08PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On the assumption that the patch is otherwise OK, how about the commit
> message below?
Yeah, that'll do fine. Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:53:51PM +, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:05:21PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:27:23AM +, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 12:46:30PM +, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> > > > From: "Suzuki K.
> I think we could still solve this problem by deferring the 'context'
> validation to the core. The PMUs could validate the group, within its
> context. i.e, if it can accommodate its events as a group, during
> event_init. The problem we face now, is encountering an event from a
> different
On 10/03/15 13:00, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 01:53:51PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
It would be nicer if we could prevent this in the core so we're not
reliant on every PMU driver doing the same verification. My initial
thought was that seemed like unnecessary duplication
> So the problem is that event_init() is what will return the pmu, so we
> cannot make decisions on it until after that returns.
I took a look into hacking something into perf_try_init_event, but it
ends up duplicating all of the existing tests and looks really out of
place.
> Maybe we can pull
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 01:53:51PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > It would be nicer if we could prevent this in the core so we're not
> > reliant on every PMU driver doing the same verification. My initial
> > thought was that seemed like unnecessary duplication of the ctx checking
> > above,
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:05:21PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:27:23AM +, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 12:46:30PM +, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> > > From: "Suzuki K. Poulose"
> > >
> > > Don't allow grouping hardware events from different
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:27:23AM +, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 12:46:30PM +, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> > From: "Suzuki K. Poulose"
> >
> > Don't allow grouping hardware events from different PMUs
> > (eg. CCI + CPU).
>
> Uhm, how does this work? If we have
On 10/03/15 11:27, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 12:46:30PM +, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
From: "Suzuki K. Poulose"
Don't allow grouping hardware events from different PMUs
(eg. CCI + CPU).
Uhm, how does this work? If we have multiple hardware PMUs we'll stop
scheduling
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 12:46:30PM +, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> From: "Suzuki K. Poulose"
>
> Don't allow grouping hardware events from different PMUs
> (eg. CCI + CPU).
Uhm, how does this work? If we have multiple hardware PMUs we'll stop
scheduling events after the first failed event
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:27:23AM +, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 12:46:30PM +, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
From: Suzuki K. Poulose suzuki.poul...@arm.com
Don't allow grouping hardware events from different PMUs
(eg. CCI + CPU).
Uhm, how does this work? If we
On 10/03/15 11:27, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 12:46:30PM +, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
From: Suzuki K. Poulose suzuki.poul...@arm.com
Don't allow grouping hardware events from different PMUs
(eg. CCI + CPU).
Uhm, how does this work? If we have multiple hardware PMUs
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 12:46:30PM +, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
From: Suzuki K. Poulose suzuki.poul...@arm.com
Don't allow grouping hardware events from different PMUs
(eg. CCI + CPU).
Uhm, how does this work? If we have multiple hardware PMUs we'll stop
scheduling events after the first
On 10/03/15 13:00, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 01:53:51PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
It would be nicer if we could prevent this in the core so we're not
reliant on every PMU driver doing the same verification. My initial
thought was that seemed like unnecessary duplication
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:05:21PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:27:23AM +, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 12:46:30PM +, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
From: Suzuki K. Poulose suzuki.poul...@arm.com
Don't allow grouping hardware events from
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 01:53:51PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
It would be nicer if we could prevent this in the core so we're not
reliant on every PMU driver doing the same verification. My initial
thought was that seemed like unnecessary duplication of the ctx checking
above, but if
So the problem is that event_init() is what will return the pmu, so we
cannot make decisions on it until after that returns.
I took a look into hacking something into perf_try_init_event, but it
ends up duplicating all of the existing tests and looks really out of
place.
Maybe we can pull out
I think we could still solve this problem by deferring the 'context'
validation to the core. The PMUs could validate the group, within its
context. i.e, if it can accommodate its events as a group, during
event_init. The problem we face now, is encountering an event from a
different PMU,
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 03:36:08PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
On the assumption that the patch is otherwise OK, how about the commit
message below?
Yeah, that'll do fine. Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:53:51PM +, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:05:21PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:27:23AM +, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 12:46:30PM +, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
From: Suzuki K. Poulose
20 matches
Mail list logo
