[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1503021617260.17687@vincent-weaver-1.umelst.maine.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 16:19:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
linux-man@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Chuck Ebbert <cebbert.lkml@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] perf_event_open.2: 3.19 PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_INTR support
On Mon, 2 Mar 2015, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> vince,
> PEBS machine state. Problem is that there is only one set of pt_regs passed to
> __intel_pmu_pebs_event(). And if REGS_INTR is set, then the pt_regs
> registers are
> indeed overwritten with PEBS captured state. To avoid the issue, we
> would have to
> carry around two sets of pt_regs.
I don't think we have to carry around both (would that ever be useful?)
Just that the behavior is a bit surprising and I should document it in the
manpage.
One question I do have: if it never makes sense to measure REGS_USER and
REGS_INTR at the same time, why was the latter added at all? Why not just
have the REGS_USER information automatically upgrade to REGS_INTR if
precise_ip is high enough?
Vince
--
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