From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752959Ab0AROVO (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:21:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752761Ab0AROVN (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:21:13 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:45836 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752300Ab0AROVN (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:21:13 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf_events: improve x86 event scheduling (v5) From: Peter Zijlstra To: Stephane Eranian Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, paulus@samba.org, davem@davemloft.net, perfmon2-devel@lists.sf.net, eranian@gmail.com In-Reply-To: References: <4b5430c6.0f975e0a.1bf9.ffff85fe@mx.google.com> <20100118134324.GB10364@nowhere> <1263822898.4283.558.camel@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:20:52 +0100 Message-ID: <1263824452.4283.566.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 15:12 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote: > > > Then there's still the question of having events of multiple hw pmus in > > a single group, I'd be perfectly fine with saying that's not allowed, > > what to others think? > > > I have seen requests for measuring both core and uncore PMU events > together for instance. It all depends on how uncore PMU will be managed. OK, hard to correlate those two though, it would basically mean only running that one task on the socket.