Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 21:48:10 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Vince Weaver <vweaver1@eecs.utk.edu>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        paulus@samba.org, acme@redhat.com
Subject: Re: perf: regression -- missing /sys/devices/system/cpu/perf_events
Message-ID: <20110524194810.GB27634@elte.hu>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105240955050.9203@cl320.eecs.utk.edu>
 <1306246306.18455.36.camel@twins>
 <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105241341160.24062@cl320.eecs.utk.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105241341160.24062@cl320.eecs.utk.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1010
Lines: 30


* Vince Weaver <vweaver1@eecs.utk.edu> wrote:

> On Tue, 24 May 2011, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > A much more reliable way is simply doing the syscall and seeing what
> > happens. But if you want to poke around in sysfs, /sys/bus/event_source/
> > is the new location.
> 
> It's been suggested that they can look for the existence of:
>   /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_paranoid
> 
> is that something not likely to go away?

Well, we indeed do not remove kernel parameters, but checking for that would 
break on systems (or chroot environments) that do not have /proc mounted or 
visible.

So, what is wrong with the method Peter suggested: the presence of the perf 
syscall (it not returning -ENOSYS) is bona fide evidence that perf is 
available.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/