On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 08:43:14PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > I think the perform backend for oprofile is the right way to go.
> > I'd even go further and say we should merge the perfom backend with
> > oprofile as the only user first, because a) the current perfom user
> > interface is a complete mess
>
> Can you suggest concrete criticism/improvements/alternative proposals to
> Stephane then?
Actually writing up a proposal for an alternate inferface is obviously
a lot of work, that I can't just do while reading a mail. I've put
it on my todo list for the next weekends.
> > and can't be merged as-is and b) that
> > ensures the oprofile backend works perfectly and we can kill some
> > existing code in exchange.
>
> Hmm, but at least for oprofile like functionality oprofile code seems
> much simpler. And it's not really bad code. I assume the user interface
> would change too. I think it's better to let them coexist for some time.
People will want perfom and oprofile in the same kernel, and we'd better
allow useage at the same time, so I'd be very much in favour of having
just one backend. Especially giving the huge amount of different
performance counters we have to support.
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
