[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87wpnl8zmv.fsf@ashishki-desk.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:41:12 +0300
From: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:
> 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?
I wanted to decouple it from the whole 'itrace' thing, because I thought
it might be usable (or at least applicable) in other contexts as well,
like tracepoints, for example. Have not given it much thought yet,
though.
Regards,
--
Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists