[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130425151035.GA26760@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 17:10:35 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/4] perf: Add hardware breakpoint address mask
On 04/25, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> 2013/4/23 Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@....com>:
> > @@ -286,7 +286,10 @@ struct perf_event_attr {
> > __u64 config1; /* extension of config */
> > };
> > union {
> > - __u64 bp_len;
> > + struct {
> > + __u32 bp_len;
> > + __u32 bp_addr_mask;
> > + };
>
> Do we need len and mask to work at the same time? I can't think of a
> situation when len and mask mix up together in a useful way to define
> a range.
And it would be nice (I think) if we could simply turn bp_len into
bp_mask. It is already the mask actually, bp_addr should be aligned.
But I do not see how we can do this, so I guess we need another field.
Well. Another option is to extend bp_len. Fortunately HW_BREAKPOINT_LEN_*
match the length, so we can simply allow any 2^n length and amd.c can
translate it into the mask.
Of course, this doesn't allow to use, say, mask=0xF0. But perhaps this
is not really useful?
I dunno. I leave this to you and Jacob ;)
Oleg.
--
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