Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752821Ab0AZJRw (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jan 2010 04:17:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752569Ab0AZJRu (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jan 2010 04:17:50 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:17770 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751043Ab0AZJRt (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jan 2010 04:17:49 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to: cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=MDHv/EQuvKGeJ8hTl/b0EUcnNQRX6WkZb7HNwsf5A25M0TqWwpmDqJKtib+FzMN6L HFRpE5KFZsSGrXehu0Q0A== MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1264442381.4283.1944.camel@laptop> References: <4b588464.1818d00a.4456.383b@mx.google.com> <1264192074.4283.1602.camel@laptop> <7c86c4471001250912l47aa53dfw2c056e3a4733271e@mail.gmail.com> <1264440342.4283.1936.camel@laptop> <7c86c4471001250948t2c1b06ebx2e70f30f45c81aad@mail.gmail.com> <1264442381.4283.1944.camel@laptop> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:17:45 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf_events: improve x86 event scheduling (v6 incremental) From: Stephane Eranian To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: eranian@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, paulus@samba.org, davem@davemloft.net, fweisbec@gmail.com, perfmon2-devel@lists.sf.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-System-Of-Record: true Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1181 Lines: 27 On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 18:48 +0100, stephane eranian wrote: >> So we have to modify hw_perf_enable() to first disable all events >> which are moving, >> then reprogram them. I suspect it may be possible to optimize this if >> we detect that >> those events had already been stopped individually (as opposed to >> perf_disable()), i.e., >> already had their counts saved. > > Right, I see no fundamentally impossible things at all, we just need to > be careful here. > > Anyway, I poked at the stack I've got now and it seems to hold up when I > poke at it with various combinations of constraint events, so I'll push > that off to Ingo and then we can go from there. > > Thanks for working on this! Ok, so I think the best way to proceed here is to first wait until all of this is checked in. Then I'll see what is missing based on what we discussed here. -- 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/