On Sat, 2010-10-09 at 09:19 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > I.e. it's not an ABI in the classic sense - we do not (because we > > cannot) guarantee the infinite availability of these events. But we can > > guarantee that the fields do not change in some stupid, avoidable way. > > also I have to say that some events are more likely to change than others > > "function foo in the kernel called" is more likely to change than "the > processor went to THIS frequency". > The concept of CPU frequencies has been with us fora long time and is > going to be there for a long time as well ...... Perhaps for basic concepts, we need a standard trace-event. Are people willing to have a TRACE_EVENT_ABI() (it's trivial to write), and we can mark those events with that macro that we know tools depend on. These events can be exposed in a /sys/kernel/events/... directory, to let tools know what what events they can rely on. We've talked about doing this before, I've just been waiting to hear a consensus on if we should. I know Peter Zijlstra was against the idea, and too bad he's off gallivanting to share his input now. -- Steve _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
