On Tue, 2017-12-12 at 23:32 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 01:10:57PM -0800, Megha Dey wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-11-20 at 12:57 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 05:54:05PM -0800, Megha Dey wrote:
> > > > + mutex_lock(&bm_counter_mutex);
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < BM_MAX_COUNTERS; i++) {
> > > > + if (bm_counter_owner[i] == NULL) {
> > > > + counter_to_use = i;
> > > > + bm_counter_owner[i] = event;
> > > > + break;
> > > > + }
> > > > + }
> > > > + mutex_unlock(&bm_counter_mutex);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (counter_to_use == -1)
> > > > + return -EBUSY;
> > >
> > > > +static struct pmu intel_bm_pmu = {
> > > > + .task_ctx_nr = perf_sw_context,
> > > > + .attr_groups = intel_bm_attr_groups,
> > > > + .event_init = intel_bm_event_init,
> > > > + .add = intel_bm_event_add,
> > > > + .del = intel_bm_event_del,
> > > > +};
> > >
> > > Still horrid.. still no.
> >
> > It seems like perf_invalid_context does not support per task monitoring:
> > find_get_context():
> > ctxn = pmu->task_ctx_nr;
> > if (ctxn < 0)
> > goto errout;
> >
> > Also, perf_hw_context is to be used only for core PMU, correct?
> >
> > That leaves us with only perf_sw_context to be used. Not sure if a new
> > context needs to be implemented.
>
> There's work on the way to allow multiple HW PMUs. You'll either have to
> wait for that or help in making that happen. What you do not do is
> silently hack around it.
Could I get a pointer to the code implementing this?
I assume that this patch cannot be accepted until there is a way to
allow multiple HW PMUs even if appropriate comments are added?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
