From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1753450Ab0ARRNq@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753450Ab0ARRNq (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:13:46 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753325Ab0ARRNq
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:13:46 -0500
Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:49499 "EHLO
	casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751624Ab0ARRNp (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:13:45 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH]  perf_events: improve x86 event scheduling (v5)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>, 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: <20100118165114.GJ10364@nowhere>
References: <4b5430c6.0f975e0a.1bf9.ffff85fe@mx.google.com>
	 <20100118134324.GB10364@nowhere> <1263822898.4283.558.camel@laptop>
	 <20100118142004.GD10364@nowhere> <1263825158.4283.590.camel@laptop>
	 <20100118144556.GE10364@nowhere> <1263826601.4283.603.camel@laptop>
	 <20100118161836.GG10364@nowhere> <1263831973.4283.622.camel@laptop>
	 <20100118165114.GJ10364@nowhere>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:13:26 +0100
Message-ID: <1263834806.4283.625.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: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 17:51 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:

> Right hw_perf_enable/disable have no action on breakpoint events.
> These were somehow considered as software events until now.
> 
> That raises the question: why perf_disable() only takes care
> of hardware events? Very few software events can trigger
> between perf_disable() and perf_enable() sections though.
> 
> May be I should handle breakpoints there.

OK, so maybe I'm not understanding the breakpoint stuff correctly, why
is it modeled as a software pmu? It has resource constraints like a
hardware pmu.