Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 07:20:05 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl,
       fweisbec@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] basic perf support for sparc
Message-ID: <20090904052005.GN18599@kernel.dk>
References: <20090817064851.GQ12579@kernel.dk> <20090903.213702.250776705.davem@davemloft.net> <20090904050256.GA8382@elte.hu> <20090903.220906.44384937.davem@davemloft.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090903.220906.44384937.davem@davemloft.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2050
Lines: 57

On Thu, Sep 03 2009, David Miller wrote:
> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 07:02:56 +0200
> 
> > 
> > * David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> Does this build for you without adding an
> >> arch/sparc/include/asm/perf_counter.h that looks
> >> something like the following?
> >> 
> >> #ifndef _ASM_SPARC_PERF_COUNTER_H
> >> #define _ASM_SPARC_PERF_COUNTER_H
> >> 
> >> #define PERF_COUNTER_INDEX_OFFSET	0
> >> 
> >> #endif
> >> 
> >> Or is this somehow now required in the -tip trees?
> > 
> > This used to be required but i recently fixed this (and that fix is 
> > upstream as well) via:
> > 
> >   f738eb1: perf_counter: Fix the PARISC build
> > 
> > there's now a default define of 0 so you dont have to define it and 
> > can leave out this chunk.
> > 
> > ( That index is only interesting if the architecture has a way to 
> >   allow unprivileged user-space to access counter registers 
> >   directly. In that case the index reflects the offset from the 
> >   (constantly changing) dynamix index which we put into the mmap 
> >   header. With Sparc not having a hw-PMU implementation this index 
> >   is entirely uninteresting at this stage. )
> 
> But you still do need at least an empty perf_counter.h file
> right?  Jens must have left the file out of his submission
> by accident, and that's what I'm trying to get to the bottom
> of here :-)
> 
> I assume there was a similar change to deal with references to
> set_perf_counter_pending() too or is at least a NOP definition
> still needed?

It wasn't required when I built and used it (and sent the patch), I used
the posted patch as-is. It's been a few weeks since I last updated and
ran that box, let me double check after morning coffee and send you a
fresh patch (if needed) :-)

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/