Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:41:29 +0100 From: Bruce M Simpson <bms@spc.org> To: Grumble <invalid@kma.eu.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why is PCE not set in CR4? Message-ID: <20031001124129.GB13612@saboteur.dek.spc.org> In-Reply-To: <20031001114155.GA12991@saboteur.dek.spc.org> References: <3F7AA0D8.1080801@kma.eu.org> <20031001114155.GA12991@saboteur.dek.spc.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[crossposting trimmed] On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 12:41:56PM +0100, Bruce M Simpson wrote: > > I have read the perfmon documentation and source code. For several > > reasons, I do not think it is totally adequate in my situation. > This is an extension to the i386_vm86() syscall which will let you turn > PCE on and off if you're the superuser. Now that I think on this a bit more, a sysctl might be a better place to put this, but it seemed to belong with the i386_vm86() bits, rather than polluting initcpu.c right away. Mind you, if you're going to hack perfmon, perhaps putting this in initcpu isn't such a bad idea after all, with a loader tunable instead. That way perfmon can pickup on the tunable when attached by nexus during boot. A few people want to see i386_vm86() die. Its death is inevitable given x86-64 and the other new platforms. So perhaps the other way is better. In any event, I reconsider my decision to commit the code, and simply offer it as an example of one way to do things, not necessarily the right way. BMS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031001124129.GB13612>