From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@amd.com>,
Benjamin Block <bebl@mageta.org>,
Hans Rosenfeld <hans.rosenfeld@amd.com>,
hpa@zytor.com, tglx@linutronix.de, suresh.b.siddha@intel.com,
eranian@google.com, brgerst@gmail.com, Andreas.Herrmann3@amd.com,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Benjamin Block <benjamin.block@amd.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/5] x86, perf: implements lwp-perf-integration (rc1)
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:44:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4EF1D4B6.3020408@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111221123442.GB6071@elte.hu>
On 12/21/2011 02:34 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> I think it can all be supported in a consistent way (see my
> previous mails) - but the feature as presented today just does
> not look useful enough to me if only supports that niche
> self-monitoring usecase.
I hate to re-enter this thread, but this "niche use case" is exactly
what LWP is designed for. And once the JVM is adapted to exploit LWP,
its use will dwarf all of the uses of perf put together (except the NMI
watchdog). You're only causing the developers needless pain by forcing
them to fit this red peg into a green hole.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-21 12:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-11-29 12:41 [PATCH 0/9] rework of extended state handling, LWP support Hans Rosenfeld
2011-11-29 12:41 ` [PATCH 1/9] x86, xsave: warn on #NM exceptions caused by the kernel Hans Rosenfeld
2011-11-29 12:41 ` [PATCH 2/9] x86, xsave: cleanup fpu/xsave support Hans Rosenfeld
2011-11-29 12:41 ` [PATCH 3/9] x86, xsave: cleanup fpu/xsave signal frame setup Hans Rosenfeld
2011-11-29 12:41 ` [PATCH 4/9] x86, xsave: rework fpu/xsave support Hans Rosenfeld
2011-11-29 12:41 ` [PATCH 5/9] x86, xsave: remove unused code Hans Rosenfeld
2011-11-29 12:41 ` [PATCH 6/9] x86, xsave: more cleanups Hans Rosenfeld
2011-11-29 12:41 ` [PATCH 7/9] x86, xsave: remove lazy allocation of xstate area Hans Rosenfeld
2011-11-29 12:41 ` [PATCH 8/9] x86, xsave: add support for non-lazy xstates Hans Rosenfeld
2011-11-29 12:41 ` [PATCH 9/9] x86, xsave: add kernel support for AMDs Lightweight Profiling (LWP) Hans Rosenfeld
2011-11-29 21:31 ` [PATCH 0/9] rework of extended state handling, LWP support Andi Kleen
2011-11-30 17:37 ` Hans Rosenfeld
2011-11-30 21:52 ` Andi Kleen
2011-12-01 20:36 ` Hans Rosenfeld
2011-12-02 2:01 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-12-02 11:20 ` Hans Rosenfeld
2011-12-07 19:57 ` Hans Rosenfeld
2011-12-07 20:00 ` [PATCH 7/8] x86, xsave: add support for non-lazy xstates Hans Rosenfeld
2011-12-07 20:00 ` [PATCH 8/8] x86, xsave: add kernel support for AMDs Lightweight Profiling (LWP) Hans Rosenfeld
2011-12-05 10:22 ` [PATCH 0/9] rework of extended state handling, LWP support Ingo Molnar
2011-12-16 16:07 ` Hans Rosenfeld
2011-12-16 16:12 ` [RFC 1/5] x86, perf: Implement software-activation of lwp Hans Rosenfeld
2011-12-16 16:12 ` [RFC 2/5] perf: adds prototype for a new perf-context-type Hans Rosenfeld
2011-12-16 16:12 ` [RFC 3/5] perf: adds a new pmu-initialization-call Hans Rosenfeld
2011-12-16 16:12 ` [RFC 4/5] x86, perf: implements lwp-perf-integration (rc1) Hans Rosenfeld
2011-12-18 8:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-18 15:22 ` Benjamin Block
2011-12-18 23:43 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-19 9:09 ` Robert Richter
2011-12-19 10:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-19 11:12 ` Avi Kivity
2011-12-19 11:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-19 11:58 ` Avi Kivity
2011-12-19 18:13 ` Benjamin
2011-12-20 8:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-20 9:15 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-20 9:47 ` Avi Kivity
2011-12-20 10:09 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-20 15:27 ` Joerg Roedel
2011-12-20 18:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-21 0:07 ` Joerg Roedel
2011-12-21 12:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-21 12:44 ` Avi Kivity [this message]
2011-12-21 13:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-21 22:49 ` Joerg Roedel
2011-12-23 10:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-21 11:46 ` Gleb Natapov
2011-12-23 10:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-20 15:48 ` Vince Weaver
2011-12-20 18:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-20 22:47 ` Vince Weaver
2011-12-21 12:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-21 13:55 ` Vince Weaver
2011-12-16 16:12 ` [RFC 5/5] x86, perf: adds support for the LWP threshold-int Hans Rosenfeld
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4EF1D4B6.3020408@redhat.com \
--to=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=Andreas.Herrmann3@amd.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bebl@mageta.org \
--cc=benjamin.block@amd.com \
--cc=brgerst@gmail.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=hans.rosenfeld@amd.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=robert.richter@amd.com \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.