Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757436Ab0ANSCr (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:02:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757257Ab0ANSCp (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:02:45 -0500 Received: from mail-pw0-f42.google.com ([209.85.160.42]:34124 "EHLO mail-pw0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757398Ab0ANSCo (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:02:44 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=WfvIwPYcdLfpbh1ATwMU0EoQfTEsmKD5QQlJC+KDPxLQemraZs4PAwpDVB/Q6ibszl o3egHV1IVrMv1bCDN97Hqemdb96mGQUsVPOOP7kr9gHmJTujYHEMAAD6/++3Z4v8Eqio h+wwLZqwD8uYIR0Vztnqh8m8Xi/S2/GB32pjk= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1263458665.4244.256.camel@laptop> References: <1263458665.4244.256.camel@laptop> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:02:44 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: HW breakpoints perf_events request From: Joshua Pincus To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , "K.Prasad" , paulus@samba.org, acme@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1610 Lines: 45 Hi Peter, On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Peter Zijlstra > We have fnctl() managing signal support, but that will only interrupt > the observing thread, not the threads being observed (unless they are > one and the same -- but using inheritance precludes that from being > true). > > I'm not sure I'm willing to go in this direction with perf, the idea is > to have a minimum impact on the observed threads, explicitly sending > them signals and disturbing their execution goes against this. I understand your qualms. I'm not asking for this feature to be implemented as the default. I'm asking that it be an option for someone like me to use. We have a very strong and compelling reason for doing what I've requested vis a vis observed threads. I am sure we can come up with other compelling reasons for doing this, not the least of which is that this functionality has been provided in Microsoft Windows for a decade or more and has proven immensely useful. For instance, one could use this as a realtime watchdog without requiring extra observing threads to do the signal processing work. Or having observed threads use the signal handler to tally up events. Without the ability for observed threads to be interrupted in this way when they hit breakpoints, the new perf_event work is not going to be useful to us in its current form. Thanks, JP > > -- 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/