Re: [patch] Performance Counters for Linux, v3

From: Robert Richter <robert.richter@amd.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	eranian@gmail.com, Vince Weaver <vince@deater.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>,
	Arjan van de Veen <arjan@infradead.org>,
	Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [patch] Performance Counters for Linux, v3
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:35:20 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081212113520.GF30490@erda.amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081212105938.GA2685@infradead.org>

On 12.12.08 05:59:38, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:21:11AM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> > I agree with Stephane. There are already many different PMU
> > descriptions depending on family, model and steppping and with *every*
> > new cpu revision you will get one more update. Implementing this in
> > the kernel would require kernel updates where otherwise no changes
> > would be necessary.
> 
> Please stop the Bullshit.  You have to update _something_.  It makes a
> lot of sense to update the thing you need to udpate anyway for new
> hardware support, and not some piece of junk library like libperfmon.

New hardware does not always mean to implement new hardware
support. Sometimes it is sufficient to simply program the same
registers in another way. Why changing the kernel for this?

-Robert

-- 
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Operating System Research Center
email: robert.richter@amd.com