From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756397AbYLMLSH (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Dec 2008 06:18:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752395AbYLMLRx (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Dec 2008 06:17:53 -0500 Received: from viefep17-int.chello.at ([62.179.121.37]:49199 "EHLO viefep18-int.chello.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750724AbYLMLRw (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Dec 2008 06:17:52 -0500 X-SourceIP: 213.46.9.244 Subject: Re: [patch] Performance Counters for Linux, v3 From: Peter Zijlstra To: eranian@gmail.com Cc: Vince Weaver , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , Eric Dumazet , Robert Richter , Arjan van de Veen , Peter Anvin , Paul Mackerras , "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <7c86c4470812120942x607a74f7w9f823adecbd73b85@mail.gmail.com> References: <20081211155230.GA4230@elte.hu> <1229070345.12883.12.camel@twins> <7c86c4470812120059s7f8e64a6h91ebeadbf938858d@mail.gmail.com> <1229073834.12883.41.camel@twins> <7c86c4470812120942x607a74f7w9f823adecbd73b85@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 12:17:28 +0100 Message-Id: <1229167048.13566.119.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 18:42 +0100, stephane eranian wrote: > In fact, I know tools which do not even need a library. By your own saying, the problem solved by libperfmon is a hard problem (and I fully understand that). Now you say there is software out there that doesn't use libperfmon, that means they'll have to duplicate that functionality. And only commercial software has a clear gain by wastefully duplicating that effort. This means there is an active commercial interest to not make perfmon the best technical solution there is, which is contrary to the very thing Linux is about. What is worse, you defend that: > Go ask end-users what they think of that? > > You don't even need a library. All of this could be integrated into the tool. > New processor, just go download the updated version of the tool. No! what people want is their problem fixed - no matter how. That is one of the powers of FOSS, you can fix your problems in any way suitable. Would it not be much better if those folks duped into using a binary only product only had to upgrade their FOSS kernel, instead of possibly forking over more $$$ for an upgrade? You have just irrevocably proven to me this needs to go into the kernel, as the design of perfmon is little more than a GPL circumvention device - independent of whether you are aware of that or not. For that I hereby fully NAK perfmon Nacked-by: Peter Zijlstra