[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091026084854.GA26990@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:48:54 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Michael Cree <mcree@...on.net.nz>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [alpha] Add minimal support for software performance
events.
* Michael Cree <mcree@...on.net.nz> wrote:
> In the kernel the patch enables configuration of the perf event
> option, adds the perf_event_open syscall, and includes a minimal
> architecture specific asm/perf_event.h header file.
>
> For the perf tool the patch implements an Alpha specific section
> in the perf.h header file and adjusts options used in the
> Makefile to allow compilation on Alpha. The -Wcast-align gives
> a "cast increases required alignment of target type" warning for
> the list_for_each_entry() macro. The -fstack-protector-all
> option generates a "not supported for this target" warning which
> with -Werror causes the compiler to abort.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Cree <mcree@...on.net.nz>
> ---
> arch/alpha/Kconfig | 1 +
> arch/alpha/include/asm/perf_event.h | 9 +++++++++
> arch/alpha/include/asm/unistd.h | 3 ++-
> arch/alpha/kernel/systbls.S | 1 +
> tools/perf/Makefile | 5 ++---
> tools/perf/perf.h | 6 ++++++
> 6 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 arch/alpha/include/asm/perf_event.h
Nice!
I've picked up the perf.h bit in an independent commit. Is there a tree
for Alpha bits?
This portion:
> --- a/tools/perf/Makefile
> +++ b/tools/perf/Makefile
> @@ -201,7 +200,7 @@ EXTRA_WARNINGS := $(EXTRA_WARNINGS) -Wold-style-definition
> EXTRA_WARNINGS := $(EXTRA_WARNINGS) -Wstrict-prototypes
> EXTRA_WARNINGS := $(EXTRA_WARNINGS) -Wdeclaration-after-statement
>
> -CFLAGS = $(MBITS) -ggdb3 -Wall -Wextra -std=gnu99 -Werror -O6 -fstack-protector-all -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 $(EXTRA_WARNINGS)
> +CFLAGS = $(MBITS) -ggdb3 -Wall -Wextra -std=gnu99 -Werror -O6 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 $(EXTRA_WARNINGS)
> LDFLAGS = -lpthread -lrt -lelf -lm
> ALL_CFLAGS = $(CFLAGS)
> ALL_LDFLAGS = $(LDFLAGS)
Should be done not by removing the stack-protector build unconditionally
- but by auto-testing whether stackprotector is supported by GCC and
using it if yes.
Examples can be found n arch/x86/Makefile's use of
scripts/gcc-*-has-stack-protector.sh.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists