[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140924141507.GF2805@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 16:15:07 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: kan.liang@...el.com
Cc: eranian@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
paulus@...ba.org, acme@...nel.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
"Yan, Zheng" <zheng.z.yan@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 11/16] perf, core: Pass perf_sample_data to
perf_callchain()
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:09:08AM -0400, kan.liang@...el.com wrote:
> From: Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>
>
> Haswell has a new feature that utilizes the existing Last Branch Record
> facility to record call chains. When the feature is enabled, function
> call will be collected as normal, but as return instructions are
> executed the last captured branch record is popped from the on-chip LBR
> registers.
> The LBR call stack facility can help perf to get call chains of progam
> without frame pointer.
>
> This patch modifies various architectures' perf_callchain() to accept
> perf sample data. Later patch will add code that use the sample data to
> get call chains.
So I don't like this. Why not use the regular PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK
output to generate the stuff from? We already have two different means,
with different transport, for callchains anyhow, so a third really won't
matter.
--
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