[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100304025908.GC23633@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 03:59:08 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Cc: eranian@...gle.com, peterz@...radead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paulus@...ba.org,
robert.richter@....com, fweisbec@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 07/11] perf: Provide PERF_SAMPLE_REGS
* David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> And more generally aren't we supposed to be able to eventually analyze perf
> dumps on any platform not just the one 'perf' was built under?
A aidenote: in this cycle Arnaldo improved this aspect of perf (and those
changes are now upstream). In theory you should be able to do a 'perf record'
+ 'perf archive' on your Sparc box and then analyze it via 'perf report' on an
x86 box - and vice versa.
( Note, it was not tested in that specific combination - another combination
was tested by Arnaldo: 32-bit PA-RISC profile interpreted on 64-bit x86. )
So yes, i agree that at minimum perf should be able to tell apart the nature
of any recording and flag combinations it cannot handle (yet).
Btw, i think the most popular use of PEBS is its precise nature, not the
register dumping aspect per se. If the kernel can provide that transparently
then that's a usecase that does not need a register dump (in user-space that
is). It's borderline doable on x86 ...
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