[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160425125718.GC3448@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 14:57:18 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
vince@...ter.net, eranian@...gle.com,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/5] perf: Introduce address range filtering
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 07:19:11PM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/perf_event.h b/include/linux/perf_event.h
> index b717902c99..4f968d6b96 100644
> --- a/include/linux/perf_event.h
> +++ b/include/linux/perf_event.h
> @@ -151,6 +151,15 @@ struct hw_perf_event {
> */
> struct task_struct *target;
>
> + /*
> + * PMU would store hardware filter configuration
> + * here.
> + */
> + void *addr_filters;
> +
> + /* Last sync'ed generation of filters */
> + unsigned long addr_filters_gen;
> +
should these not go in the itrace struct?
/me continues reading
Powered by blists - more mailing lists