[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVQ8SBg+YLuPmDevL+f2dzBjLJucfMvVHaB04E8QJSGXw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:59:17 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
"Yan, Zheng" <zheng.z.yan@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/14] perf, x86: Haswell LBR call stack support
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
>> I'm suggesting a perf event option, just like the way that PEBS works.
>
> Right now it's a somewhat experimental feature and just having
> the sysctl is fine. If it turns out that is what everyone uses
> such an option could be still added later.
I'm a bit worried that the syscall will be stuck as ABI forever,
though. Its presence will make adding a different configuration
mechanism awkward.
>
> I suspect most people would still use FP if they can, just use
> the LBRs if that doesn't work.
I wonder if anyone who uses perf for userspace profiling *ever* uses
FP and gets away with it. There's precious little userspace software
compiled with frame pointers these days on most architectures.
I have a concrete reason for this question: it would be nice to
compile the vDSO with frame pointers off. IIRC there would be a
significant performance gain, and I think the only thing that would
break is perf. But it looks like perf will have nice elfutils unwind
support in 3.15, and if FP support is useless anyway...
--Andy
--
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