DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to
         :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding
         :content-disposition:references;
        b=VUhqQ2i+TeqD+0YRzFBqAjnxUMK/LJ0rrsDS9S+MubJUoz3neaLuO2U/rOu9WZj/IT
         eptFfhIh5YuB50Km6LqS9Dh91ngUH3XrZKgZfMZjhcHfoGHdPYiFS/2gyT5F8r8Msqm+
         9qS2swPlJRHGMxCwoSymCTebML1MvoRmntkRA=
Message-ID: <7c86c4470810030412l34d3dc13mef10c9320884d635@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 13:12:09 +0200
From: "stephane eranian" <eranian@googlemail.com>
Reply-To: eranian@gmail.com
To: "David Gibson" <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>, eranian@gmail.com,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: perfmon3 interface overview
Cc: perfmon2-devel <perfmon2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
In-Reply-To: <7c86c4470810030358m1a0fdcc5i5512a1c2a6696457@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <7c86c4470809231432j4231cfa4g7dd158a7fe9c9277@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7c86c4470809251448j65fb99f1nfdb3980e0716149a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20081003061713.GL3002@yookeroo.seuss>
	 <7c86c4470810030354x6984372akfe18761da7504a0c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7c86c4470810030358m1a0fdcc5i5512a1c2a6696457@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2171
Lines: 60

David,
>> [snip]
>> > III) attaching and detaching
>> >
>> >   With v2.81:
>> >      int pfm_load_context(int fd, pfarg_load_t *load);
>> >      int pfm_unload_context(int fd);
>> >
>> >   With v3.0:
>> >      int pfm_attach_session(int fd, int flags, int target);
>> >      int pfm_detach_session(int fd, int flags);
>>
>> Couldn't you get rid of one more syscall here by making detach a
>> special case of attach with a special "null" value for target, or a
>> special flag?
>
>
>  We could combine the two and use the flag field to indicate attach/detach.
>  The target is not a pointer but an int. Some people suggested I use an
>  unsigned long instead. In anycase, we could not use 0 to indicate "detach"
>  because CPU0 is a valid choice for system-wide. Thus we would have to
>  pick another value to mean "nothing", e.g, -1.
>
>  >  IV) starting and stopping
>  >
>  >    With v2.81:
>  >       int pfm_start(int fd, pfarg_start_t *st);
>  >       int pfm_stop(int fd);
>  >       int pfm_restart(int fd);
>  >
>  >    With v3.0:
>  >       int pfm_start_session(int fd, int flags);
>  >       int pfm_stop_session(int fd, int flags);
>
>> Likewise, couldn't you cut this down by one more syscall by making it
>>        int pfm_set_session_state(int fd, int flags);
>> and having a 'RUNNING' flag, which selects start or stop behaviour?
>
>  That one we can certainly do. That's a good idea.

Some more thoughts on this.

If we wanted to go even further, we could combine start/stop, attach/detach
into  a single syscall:

   int pfm_control_session(int fd, int flags, int target);
   With flags:
       PFM_CTFL_START  : start monitoring
       PFM_CTFL_STOP    : stop monitoring
       PFM_CTFL_RESTART: resume after overflow notification

       PFM_CTFL_ATTACH: attach to thread or cpu designated by 'target'
       PFM_CTFL_DETACH: detach session

But then, this is a form of ioctl() which people don't like....
--
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/