On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:48:05AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:31:00AM +0000, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 05:56:51PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > Another option would be to have a context per-pmu. Each context's pmu > > > pointer would be valid, and (other than the case of software events) it > > > doesn't make sense to place events from disparate PMUs into the same > > > group anyway. Then you don't need a fixed sized pmu list in the context > > > or some arcane list structs. > > > > No it does make sense; for example on hardware that doesn't have a PMI > > you can create a software event + hardware event group and have the > > software interrupt read the hardware counter and still get 'some' > > sampling. > > Sure, I called out software events as an exception above.
Oh sorry missed that. > Does it ever make sense to group two hardware events for disparate > hardware PMUs? No, and I think we disallow that. We only explicitly allow software events/groups to move to !software context. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
