Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754607AbYK0Ttg (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Nov 2008 14:49:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752777AbYK0Tt1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Nov 2008 14:49:27 -0500 Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.128.189]:51058 "EHLO fk-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752776AbYK0Tt1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Nov 2008 14:49:27 -0500 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=MkZ2kdkOsIfXJ8b4FKTC7P4H8dse0RuxPFvIiHSzFKoroUiqpvf+NFB1x6octq3p45 7l1hvCPB1oNpshDrI8SsFzm4NyuWuDNgOlxuuCRM7KBoYUQ8aMo5/9upEZynD6T+9rrU Txyp0TPWc0hil6csvD/bFCkmlDwVYuzwcU1AQ= Message-ID: <7c86c4470811271149m5f5556c0y468be509bb6a200@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 20:49:25 +0100 From: "stephane eranian" Reply-To: eranian@gmail.com To: "Thomas Gleixner" Subject: Re: [patch 02/24] perfmon: base code Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu, x86@kernel.org, andi@firstfloor.org, sfr@canb.auug.org.au In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <492d0bd8.11435e0a.1686.ffff8801@mx.google.com> <7c86c4470811270947q585cba5vf8bdb875962a1856@mail.gmail.com> <7c86c4470811271051g66669197qb6b5fd39961668a9@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1242 Lines: 30 On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Stephane, > > On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, stephane eranian wrote: > >> >> session is independent of each other. You can therefore measure different >> >> things on different CPUs. Reservation is thus done independently for each >> >> CPU, therefore we need a cpu bitmask to track allocation. >> > >> > Ok. Question: if you do a one CPU wide session with perfom, can you >> > still do thread monitoring on the same CPU ? >> > >> No. They are currently mutually exclusive. >> >> > If no, what prevents that a monitored thread is migrated to such a CPU ? >> > >> Nothing. AND you don't want to change affinity because you are monitoring. >> So the current restriction is that cpu-wide and per-thread are >> mutually exclusive. > > And how is this achieved ? Currently there seems nothing which > prevents a per-thread vs. cpu-wide monitoring. > That's true, but that's because cpu-wide support is not included in the patchset. -- 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/