Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752811Ab0ARNGe (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:06:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751118Ab0ARNGd (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:06:33 -0500 Received: from mail-fx0-f225.google.com ([209.85.220.225]:57781 "EHLO mail-fx0-f225.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751033Ab0ARNGc convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:06:32 -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:content-transfer-encoding; b=uZJcL4V1nP0GCLmrCrdttw605OXTI9PpYfmwp3REBaMMIid8qx861Fuz3sElXwQ1Ju BchB8DSCqIma+vTgPRxmaYXFOR6rNZW91N1beHvRD+Pzn1h2pzHFVEdU8tbjF4sZL6qf Wui7ZY7D85EKYMAH2y6b/OQVV2p4jDiB40ueo= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <7c86c4471001180457ue8738a5r25d717c939c6588c@mail.gmail.com> References: <4b4c761b.0338560a.1eaa.ffff824d@mx.google.com> <1263400193.4244.238.camel@laptop> <20100117141233.GF5035@nowhere> <1263813189.4283.245.camel@laptop> <1263815616.4283.332.camel@laptop> <20100118120747.GG5256@nowhere> <7c86c4471001180457ue8738a5r25d717c939c6588c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:06:30 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [perfmon2] [PATCH] perf: fix the is_software_event() definition From: Frederic Weisbecker To: eranian@gmail.com Cc: Peter Zijlstra , perfmon2-devel@lists.sf.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stephane Eranian , paulus@samba.org, mingo@elte.hu, davem@davemloft.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1873 Lines: 53 2010/1/18 stephane eranian : > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:53:36PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 12:13 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> > On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 15:12 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: >>> > >>> > > You need to also call pmu->disable() if it is a software event, >>> > > because a breakpoint needs to be unregistered in hardware level >>> > > too. >>> > >>> > breakpoint isn't a software pmu. But yeah, enable and disable need to >>> > match. >>> >>> That is, it shouldn't be a software pmu, because we assume software >>> events can always be scheduled, whereas that's definitely not so for the >>> breakpoint one. >>> >>> Which seems to suggest the following >>> >>> --- >>> Subject: perf: fix the is_software_event() definition >>> >>> When adding the breakpoint pmu Frederic forgot to exclude it from being >>> a software event. While we're at it, make it an inclusive expression. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra >> >> >> >> Agreed. >> >> But then Stephane will need to update his patch and use >> something else than is_software_event() to guess if an event >> needs its pmu->enable/disable to be called. >> >> A kind of helper that can tell: I am not handled by >> hw_perf_group_sched_in() >> > Then, we should use something that checks if the event > is handled by the X86 PMU layer: > > int is_x86_hw_event(struct perf_event *event) > { > ? return event->pmu == x86_pmu; > } > Yeah. I missed this patch from Peter in its answer. Looks good. -- 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/