[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AE6AAD3.3000102@orcon.net.nz>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:09:55 +1300
From: Michael Cree <mcree@...on.net.nz>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
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.
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * 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?
>
Not that I know of. Note also that this patch is on top of the patch
"alpha: Wire up missing/new syscalls" recently posted by Daniele Calore
(http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/10/21/99). Hopefully this and prior patches
get picked up by the Alpha maintainers.
> 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.
>
Revised patch attached. It includes a test that the compiler doesn't
bomb out with -fstack-protector-all and only adds the option to CFLAGS
if ok. But I have had to put the test below the definition of the macro
CC. This has the side effect of separating the addition of
-fstack-protector-all from the main definitions of CFLAGS and
ALL_CFLAGS, and is not ideal in my opinion. The patch also removes
-Wcast-align (I forgot to say that in the commit message of the patch).
Michael.
View attachment "0001-Test-fstack-protector-all-compiler-option-for-inclus.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1995 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists