Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759289Ab1FWLvf (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jun 2011 07:51:35 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:42213 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755812Ab1FWLvd (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jun 2011 07:51:33 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=djD1SP8C3rOnZySyiY08pRFW0bWc8fACwGSTJBd+8gEQ4RbVcrDFNBCZJRj4kzWIPK NE7TAqEx2+fxxa60z4pvlxURhma7Iz7Z2VWdSUoXww3Jil0/YOMyPwnxEzxY2+SjbEQD dWXy9f97/tpnek9ArhUdcrgtzDgtayf386rg4= Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:51:29 +0400 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: Don Zickus Cc: Stephane Eranian , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Lin Ming , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Frederic Weisbecker , Vince Weaver , lkml Subject: Re: [RFC -tip] perf, x86: Add PERF_COUNT_HW_NMI_WATCHDOG event v2 Message-ID: <20110623115128.GF10238@sun> References: <20110621175421.GF21641@sun> <20110621183227.GG21641@sun> <20110622082756.GK21641@sun> <20110622092134.GO21641@sun> <20110623064835.GB10238@sun> <20110623095439.GC10238@sun> <20110623110706.GE10238@sun> <20110623114055.GV3765@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110623114055.GV3765@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1366 Lines: 31 On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 07:40:55AM -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 03:07:06PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 01:54:39PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > > ... > > > > > > > > No new hidden event, just a x86_pmu + a per-arch callbacks. > > > > > > Looks quite good for me, Don? (i'll cook some draft patch for review meanwhile). > > > > > > Cyrill > > > > Since we are going to make __weak linking anyway maybe something like below > > fit even beter? (untested) > > I don't think the compiler knows what platform you are running on and may > just blindly link your new p4 function for all x86s, which is probably not > what you want. As only there will be second/third and so on implementation of hw_nmi_watchdog_set_attr then indeed it become a problem, for a while it's not, only single implementation. I personally don't like much __weak linking until there is no other choise, so explicit general event for x86 in a sake of nmi-watchdog (without any __weak functions) is my favorite but I'm fine with Stephane proposal as well, so Don what is your choise? Cyrill -- 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/