* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:

quoted text
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 04:28:11PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * K.Prasad <prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > > Providing those would let us build a pmu struct on top of this 
> > > > high level API, hopefully.
> > 
> > Note that there's a PMU struct already in 
> > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_counter.c. Could debug-register ops be 
> > tacked on to it?
> 
> No, we don't need to build an arch level pmu since the BP api 
> already handles the arch abstraction (or well, it is planned to).
> 
> Instead, what we need is a core pmu that relies on the BP api. 
> Such pmu will be allocated dynamically while creating a hardware 
> breakpoint counter.

i'm not convinced at all we need all that layering of 
perfcounters->pmu->BP. Why not add BP support to the PMU abstraction 
and be done with it?

That way we get hardware breakpoints via 'pinned, exclusive, per cpu 
hw-breakpoint counters' for example and kernel/hw-breakpoint.c can 
go away altogether.

kernel/perf_counter.c already handles scheduling, conflict 
resolution, enumeration, syscall exposure and more.

Hm?

	Ingo
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/