[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151106025844.GA28859@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 18:58:45 -0800
From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, x86@...nel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3]perf/core: extend perf_reg and
perf_sample_regs_intr
Peter Zijlstra [peterz@...radead.org] wrote:
| On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 02:16:15AM +0530, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
| > Second patch updates struct arch_misc_reg for arch/powerpc with pmu registers
| > and adds offsetof macro for the same. It extends perf_reg_value()
| > to use reg idx to decide on struct to return value from.
|
| Why; what's in those regs?
Those are PMU control registers/counters (in Patch 2) that are of
interest only in the context of a PMU interrupt and not relevant
to ptrace itself.
Could we add those registers to 'struct pt_regs' anyway?
We do have 'struct perf_regs' but that seems to be arch nuetral.
If architectures could override that, maybe we could add these
new registers there without touching 'struct pt_regs'.
Even so, lot of perf code depends on 'struct pt_regs'.
Sukadev
--
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