On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 11:02:58AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 07:48:41AM +0100, Ingo Molnar escreveu:
> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 02:11:02PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > Also, I'm not convinced we need a new 'ppp' qualifier for any of this, why not
> > > > just replace 'pp' with this event - 'pp' is meant to be our most precise
> > > > event.
>
> > > I requested this because the PREC_DIST events can only be scheduled on a single
> > > counter, whereas the existing :pp events can be had on all 4.
>
> > > This mean you can have 2 concurrent :pp users (without RR), but not :ppp.
>
> > Ok. Will tooling do the right thing? I.e. will the first user of 'perf top' get
> > :ppp automatically, while the second one falls back to :pp?
>
> I guess so:
>
> void perf_event_attr__set_max_precise_ip(struct perf_event_attr *attr)
> {
> attr->precise_ip = 3;
Indeed so, I've since confirmed it does also works in practise.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|