linux-kernel - Re: Perf record format portability

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 16 May 2012 12:50:48 -0300
From:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
To:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:	Dmitry Antipov <dmitry.antipov@...aro.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>,
	linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: Perf record format portability

Em Wed, May 16, 2012 at 05:16:55PM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:59:27AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Adding Jiri and Steven to the CC list.
> > 
> > Em Wed, May 16, 2012 at 02:50:31PM +0400, Dmitry Antipov escreveu:
> > > On 05/15/2012 07:51 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > >Em Tue, May 15, 2012 at 07:27:39PM +0400, Dmitry Antipov escreveu:
> > > >>are there any thoughts on how much of the perf.data is portable and how much it should be?
> > > >>I'm interesting in recording scheduler activity on one machine and then replaying on
> > > >>another. As I can see, replaying x86 perf.data on ARM doesn't work. At least, should it
> > > >>work with a small subset of recorded events (for example, sched:sched_switch,
> > > >>sched:sched_process_exit, sched:sched_process_fork, sched:sched_wakeup
> > > >>and sched:sched_migrate_task) on the same architecture?
> > > >
> > > >Endianness issues? ARM EB? There are some patches by Jiri Olsa that may
> > > >help you if that is the case.
> 
> latest version sent today, there's description of tests I did:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=133715172512742&w=2
> 
> Each time I run new sort of test, another endianity issue is hit.
> so, tracepoints.. I'll check ;)

The tracepoints part is a different problem, I think, but take a look
anyway ;-)

- Arnaldo
--
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/