[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100326173841.GD5188@nowhere>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:38:44 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Archs <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] perf updates and fixes
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 08:58:17AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 02:52:35AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > > The series is not yet mergeable because it would break PowerPc (hot regs
> > > snapshot API has been changed, and I don't know how to update PowerPc for
> > > that).
> > >
> > > But if you're fine with the ideas, I can integrate the necessary changes
> > > to fix this, and also separate fixes and updates.
> >
> > The patch below adds the necessary stuff for powerpc. You could fold it
> > into your "perf: Move perf_arch_fetch_caller_regs into a macro" patch, or
> > keep it as a separate patch in the series (though that would make preserving
> > bisectability more difficult).
>
> Since the series needs a resend anyway folding back ought to be fine i think.
>
> I'm wondering whether this should get into tip:perf/urgent - or in
> tip:perf/core for 2.6.35.
>
> It fixes sw event call trace ugliness, but is that a 2.6.34 regression? Is
> there any other aspect of the series that points towards accelerating this
> into .34?
Let's have a look:
perf: Correctly align perf event tracing buffer
Should probably go into urgent. The change is not invasive at
all. It doesn't fix a regression but it's still an important fix.
The rest
It depends. The whole bunch is rather invasive.
The callchains of context switches never worked correctly
I think. I couldn't tell if the cpu migration has ever worked.
If it ever did, then it's a regression fix but in the middle of
too much hot regs improvements. So I can cook a specific fix for
the cpu migration event to work, and keep the rest for perf/core.
--
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