On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 01:06:19PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 08/02/2018 12:54 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> I totally understand not wanting to fill the tree with code hijacking > >> the raw PMU. Is your reaction to this really around not wanting to > >> start down the slippery slope that ends up with lots of raw PMU "owners"? > > That and the fact that multiple owner directly contradicts what perf set > > out to do, provide resource arbitration for the PMU. > > > > Not being able to use both perf and this resctl thing at the same time > > is utter crap. You will not get special dispensation. > > Is there something we could do in the middle, like have perf itself be > in charge of doing all the programming, but the psuedo-locking could > still _read_ the counters?
perf has all of that.
