On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijls...@chello.nl> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-09-27 at 21:31 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> + intx : 1, /* count inside
>> transaction */
>> + intx_checkpointed : 1, /* checkpointed in
>> transaction */
>
> I really hate those names.. what are they called in transactional memory
> literature?
>
> Also do we really need this? Using the event format stuff we could
> equally well do:
>
> {cpu/cycles/, cpu/cycles,intx/, cpu/cycles,intx_checkpointed/}
>
> No need to push those bits through perf_event_attr::flags when you can
> stuff then through perf_event_attr::config, esp. for very hardware
> specific features.
Make sense to promote them if they exist on other arch. If not, then
for now, they
should be in sysfs. Doing this does not preclude future promotions if
there is more
architectures supporting the exact same meaning.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
