On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:13:10PM -0500, Vince Weaver wrote: > On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:55:17PM -0500, Vince Weaver wrote: > > > > I don't see an existing pmu capabilities struct... or do you mean > > > coming up with one? > > > > Yeah, adding one. > > So would it be a struct, or just an integer with flags?
I hadn't really considered that; per the below proposed names I suppose I was thinking of 'unsigned long flags' with #define PMU_HAS_flags. But a named struct would work too I suppose. > > > Would it only hold an "overflow_interrupt_available" flag, or are > > > there other generic capabilities it would be handy to know about? > > > > Possible (other) flags could be: > > > > PMU_HAS_INT -- would allow sampling events > > PMU_HAS_PRECISE -- would allow any ::precise value > > PMU_HAS_FILTER -- would allow all os/user/etc. flags > > should we export these to userspace somehow? > > It would be handy to be able to tell you're getting EOPNOTSUP because > PMU_HAS_INT is not set for your pmu, rather than trying to guess why > things are failing. Yeah I suppose we could do something like that. Maybe something like: # cat /sys/bus/event_source/devices/cpu/flags int precise filter ? -- 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/
