On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:47:26PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:03:36PM +0100, Liang, Kan wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 09:33:45PM +0100, [email protected] wrote: > > > > From: Kan Liang <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > Using is_hardware_event to replace !is_software_event to indicate a > > > > hardware event. > > > > > > Why...? > > > > First, the comments of is_software_event is not correct. > > 0 or !is_software_event is not for a hardware event. > > is_hardware_event is for a hardware event. > > Circular logic is fantastic.
Sorry for the snark here. I completely misread this. I agree that the comment is wrong. However, changing !is_software_event to is_hardware_event is not always correct. For example, perf_group_attach tests for the addition of a non-software event to a software group, so we can mark the group as not consisting solely of software events. For that to be done correctly, we need to check !is_software_event. I was wrong about the throttling, having confused active_oncpu and nr_active. Sorry for the noise on that. However, as you mention that does prevent the use of exclusive events for uncore PMUs, and I don't see why that should change. Thanks, Mark. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
