lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Apr]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 01/32] perf: Allow a PMU to have a parent
On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 05:44:45PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 14:40:40 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 11:16:07AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> >
> > > In the long run I agree it would be good. Short term there are more instances of
> > > struct pmu that don't have parents than those that do (even after this series).
> > > We need to figure out what to do about those before adding checks on it being
> > > set.
> >
> > Right, I don't think you've touched *any* of the x86 PMUs for example,
> > and getting everybody that boots an x86 kernel a warning isn't going to
> > go over well :-)
> >
>
> It was tempting :) "Warning: Parentless PMU: try a different architecture."

Haha!

> I'd love some inputs on what the x86 PMU devices parents should be?
> CPU counters in general tend to just spin out of deep in the architecture code.

For the 'simple' ones I suppose we can use the CPU device.

> My overall favorite is an l2 cache related PMU that is spun up in
> arch/arm/kernel/irq.c init_IRQ()

Yeah, we're going to have a ton of them as well. Some of them are PCI
devices and have a clear parent, others, not so much :/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-04-06 21:51    [W:0.231 / U:0.904 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site