On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 02:01:04AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote: >> But are you removing the incremental calls from the upper layer via >> x86_pmu.add()? >> If not, then you are saying the dynamic constraint you got for >> offcore_response, LBR >> or the HT workaround is still the best avail now. > > sigh, see I knew I was missing something :/ > > So then for c->flag & DYNAMIC we should put and get again, right?
I think it would still work. The constraint, even dynamic, you got on first call is "locked" to you. So if you call x86_schedule_events multiple times to add events like for E1, E2, E3 which causes at most 3 calls to x86_schedule_events9). Then you'd get the same constraint but it would still be valid. Just need to make sure you release it if scheduling fails at event N and it has the dynamic constraint. -- 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/
