Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750728AbVK3BE3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:04:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750759AbVK3BE3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:04:29 -0500 Received: from ns1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:9887 "EHLO mx1.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750728AbVK3BE2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:04:28 -0500 Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 02:04:27 +0100 From: Andi Kleen To: David Gibson , Andi Kleen , Nicholas Miell , Stephane Eranian , Ray Bryant , discuss@x86-64.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, perfctr-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: [Perfctr-devel] Re: Enabling RDPMC in user space by default Message-ID: <20051130010426.GC19515@wotan.suse.de> References: <20051129215207.GR19515@wotan.suse.de> <1133303615.3271.12.camel@entropy> <20051129224346.GS19515@wotan.suse.de> <1133305338.3271.30.camel@entropy> <20051129231750.GU19515@wotan.suse.de> <1133306966.3271.36.camel@entropy> <20051129233920.GW19515@wotan.suse.de> <20051129235626.GC9659@localhost.localdomain> <20051130003433.GA19515@wotan.suse.de> <20051130005205.GD9659@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051130005205.GD9659@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1199 Lines: 28 > It just seems to me unwise to make an ABI commitment to something > that's not guaranteed by the architecture, perverse though it might > seem for the chip designers to take it away. CPU designers have been > known to do some fairly perverse things from time to time.. What would you prefer? Letting them continue to use RDTSC which is less and less an usable cycle count? Telling the users it's a bad idea without offering a credible alternative for cycle counting? And if they break it the kernel can always trap it, so there's at least a safety net. One alternative would be to make a function in the vsyscall page, but that would add at least an indirect function call which can be quite slow and I can just hear people complaining about that. Also there are only two slots in the vsyscall page left right now and I already planned them for other things (although it would be possible to go for a full vDSO, just a lot of overhead) -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/