From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
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 14:22:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111221132233.GB31186@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4EF1D4B6.3020408@redhat.com>
* Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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. [...]
It's not the only usecase that it can be used in, and that is
what matters to me.
> [...] 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.
I disagree - i think LWP has been seriously over-sold and
seriously under-designed. Anyway, i'm willing to be convinced
that it's worth to be merged upstream, if it brings tangible
benefits to the usecases i mentioned.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-21 14:43 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
2011-12-21 13:22 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
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=20111221132233.GB31186@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=Andreas.Herrmann3@amd.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--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=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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®