linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 00/22] perf tools: Introduce an abstraction for Instruction Tracing

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]

Message-ID: <20141215151306.GA16737@krava.redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Dec 2014 16:13:06 +0100
From:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 00/22] perf tools: Introduce an abstraction for
 Instruction Tracing

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 08:09:53AM -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> On 12/15/14 2:08 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> >On 12/12/14 20:53, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> >>Em Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 09:13:25AM -0700, David Ahern escreveu:
> >>>On 12/12/14 6:47 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> >>>>Here is V3 of some more preparatory patches for Intel PT
> >>>>that introduce an abstraction for Instruction tracing.
> >>
> >>>This is an x86-Intel only feature correct? If that is the case then the code
> >>>should be not compiled for other architectures.
> >
> >It is not that simple. In the case of recording, it is not needed for
> >architectures that don't support it, but in the case of session processing
> >any architecture can (or should be able to) process the perf.data file of
> >any other architecture.
> 
> Understood. perf is a kitchen sink tool and the size of binaries for
> embedded deployments is getting out of hand. e.g., for our PPC based systems
> the entire root filesystem is 46M with perf taking up almost 3M of that
> (stripped size too). New features need config options so user's can decide
> the feature scope of what they are building. And we need to get the kconfig
> style builds committed as well.

yep.. I'm on that kconfig stuff ;-)

jirka
--
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/