perfmon2 on fedora kernels

[Ted Sume Nzuonkwelle]

Hi,

My apologies if this is going to the wrong mailing list.

Is there an easy way to enable support for perfmon2 in the fedora 9
kernel(s)? Looks like the patch for perfmon2 available at


http://sourceforge.net/projects/perfmon2/

is only useful if patching a vanilla kernel? Any help and/pointers will
be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

- Ted Sume

[Chuck Ebbert]

Ted Sume Nzuonkwelle wrote:
>  Hi,
>  
>  My apologies if this is going to the wrong mailing list.
>  
>  Is there an easy way to enable support for perfmon2 in the fedora 9
>  kernel(s)? Looks like the patch for perfmon2 available at
>  
>  
>  http://sourceforge.net/projects/perfmon2/
>  
>  is only useful if patching a vanilla kernel? Any help and/pointers will
>  be greatly appreciated.
>   
It shouldn't be too hard to get it working. You just need to fix up the parts
that don't apply properly.

We could put it in fedora but it's not upstream and nobody can say when or if
it will go in.

[Dave Jones]

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 02:26:10PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:

>  We could put it in fedora but it's not upstream and nobody can
> say when or if
>  it will go in. 
After the long drawn out pain that utrace has been, I'm somewhat reluctant.
Especially for something that's providing additional userspace interfaces
that aren't upstream.

	Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk

[Kyle McMartin]

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 02:31:33PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
>  On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 02:26:10PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>  
>   > We could put it in fedora but it's not upstream and nobody can say when or if
>   > it will go in.
>  
>  After the long drawn out pain that utrace has been, I'm somewhat reluctant.
>  Especially for something that's providing additional userspace interfaces
>  that aren't upstream.
>   
Perfmon adds a ridiculous number of syscalls, which means we *really*
shouldn't merge it until they're reserved upstream, otherwise backwards
compat woes will ensue. However, perfmon doesn't look like it is
anywhere near being merged in the current form, so I'd rate it as unlikely
upstream will reserve 10+ syscall entrypoints for it...

NAK from me...

cheers, Kyle