From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 1 05:41:34 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B20F516A4B3 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 05:41:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from arginine.spc.org (arginine.spc.org [195.206.69.236]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCE0B43FF7 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 05:41:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bms@spc.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arginine.spc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E339C65495; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:41:32 +0100 (BST) Received: from arginine.spc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arginine.spc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 70902-02-7; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:41:32 +0100 (BST) Received: from saboteur.dek.spc.org (unknown [81.3.72.68]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by arginine.spc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54F7D65449; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:41:32 +0100 (BST) Received: by saboteur.dek.spc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id C11031F; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:41:29 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:41:29 +0100 From: Bruce M Simpson To: Grumble , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20031001124129.GB13612@saboteur.dek.spc.org> Mail-Followup-To: Grumble , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org References: <3F7AA0D8.1080801@kma.eu.org> <20031001114155.GA12991@saboteur.dek.spc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031001114155.GA12991@saboteur.dek.spc.org> Subject: Re: Why is PCE not set in CR4? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:41:34 -0000 [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