On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 05:08:11PM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
> > 3. ioctl DETACH from it so that it is "forked in the background" so to
> > speak, very similar to a background job in the shell.
>
> Would it make sense to actually fork a kernel thread that "owns" the
> event?
>
> The way it is now events can "get loose" if either the user
> forgets about them or the tool that opened them crashes, and it's
> impossible to kill these events with normal tools. You possibly
> wouldn't even know one was running (except you'd have one fewer
> counter to work with) unless you poked around under /sys.
Actually, the idea is to be able to reattach and control that event with
perf tool too, in addition to some specialized daemon or whatever. So
whatever else "lost" it, using perf tool you should be able to get it
back.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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/
