From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752723AbaBYLbH (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:31:07 -0500 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:38617 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751864AbaBYLbF (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:31:05 -0500 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:31:00 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Mark Rutland Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Will Deacon , Dave P Martin , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] perf: kill perf_event_context::pmu Message-ID: <20140225113100.GN9987@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1392054264-23570-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com> <1392054264-23570-8-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com> <20140210181026.GD27965@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20140211175651.GA15200@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140211175651.GA15200@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 05:56:51PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > Another option would be to have a context per-pmu. Each context's pmu > pointer would be valid, and (other than the case of software events) it > doesn't make sense to place events from disparate PMUs into the same > group anyway. Then you don't need a fixed sized pmu list in the context > or some arcane list structs. No it does make sense; for example on hardware that doesn't have a PMI you can create a software event + hardware event group and have the software interrupt read the hardware counter and still get 'some' sampling.