Re: quick overview of the perfmon2 interface

From: Christoph Hellwig <>
Date: 2005-12-22 23:05:58
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 03:56:32AM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> reason:
> 	- allow support of existing kernel profiling infratructures such as
> 	  Oprofile or VTUNE (the VTUNE driver is open-source)

last time I checked it was available in source, but not under an open-source
license.  has this changed?  In either case intel should contribute to the
kernel profiling infrastructure instead of doing their own thing.  Supporting
people to do their own private variant is always a bad thing.

> Let's take an example on Itanium. Take a user running a commercial distro
> based on 2.6. This user is given early access to a Montecito machine.

That scenario is totally uninteresting for kernel development.  we want
to encourage people to use upstream kernels, and not the bastardized vendor

I think you're adding totally pointless complexity everywhere for such
scenarious because HP apparently cares for such vendor mess.  Maybe you
should concentrate on what's best for upstream kernel development.  And
the most important thing is to reduce complexity by at least one magnitude.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Thu Dec 22 23:06:37 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-12-22 23:06:46 EST