[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFw+vE4zMe1bJohLuoMDaFpqGCz6sBNRE8gkV7JOvtro0g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 11:34:35 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, eranian@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:perf/core] perf/x86: Fix USER/KERNEL tagging of samples
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> If some code then changes the values in the pt_regs, it is *that* code
> that needs to think twice about what it does. Where is that code?
>From a quick grep it looks like it is __intel_pmu_pebs_event() that does this.
THAT is where you would possibly have a huge honking big comment about
how you have to fake the CS register contents because the PEBS
information is incomplete. But make it clear that it is a total hack.
Also, somebody should check. Is the PEBS information *actually* the
instruction pointer (address within the code segment), or is it the
"linear address" (segment base + rip)? I hope it is the latter,
because in the absense of CS, the segment-based address is very
unclear indeed.
And if it *is* the linear address, then at that point you could do
regs->cs = kernel_ip(ip) ? __KERNEL_CS : __USER_CS;
regs->eflags &= ~X86_EFLAGS_VM;
and document this as a "we fake the CS and vm86 mode, using the known
zero-based code segments". At that point it would be technically
correct.
But any code that does "kernel_ip(regs->ip)" is just terminally
confused and can never be sane.
Linus
--
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