[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160919152602.GB4840@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:26:02 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, treeze.taeung@...il.com,
naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, markus@...ppelsdorf.de,
chris.ryder@....com, pawel.moll@....com, mhiramat@...nel.org,
rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk, jolsa@...nel.org, mpe@...erman.id.au,
hemant@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, namhyung@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/7] perf annotate: Add support for powerpc
Em Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 06:29:34PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria escreveu:
> From: "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> +static struct ins *ins__find_powerpc(const char *name)
> +{
> + int i;
> + struct ins *ins;
> + struct ins_ops *ops;
> + static struct instructions_powerpc head;
> + static bool list_initialized;
> +
> + /*
> + * - Interested only if instruction starts with 'b'.
> + * - Few start with 'b', but aren't branch instructions.
> + */
> + if (name[0] != 'b' ||
> + !strncmp(name, "bcd", 3) ||
> + !strncmp(name, "brinc", 5) ||
> + !strncmp(name, "bper", 4))
> + return NULL;
> +
> + if (!list_initialized) {
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&head.list);
> + list_initialized = true;
> + }
Why not ditch list_initialized and instead just declare the list as:
static struct instructions_powerpc head = {
.list = LIST_HEAD_INIT(head.list),
}
Just like the kernel sources do? See for instance:
net/core/net_namespace.c
struct net init_net = {
.dev_base_head = LIST_HEAD_INIT(init_net.dev_base_head),
};
> +
> + /*
> + * Return if we already have object of 'struct ins' for this instruction
> + */
> + ins = list_search__ins_powerpc(&head, name);
> + if (ins)
> + return ins;
> +
> + ops = &jump_ops;
> +
> + i = strlen(name) - 1;
> + if (i < 0)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + /* ignore optional hints at the end of the instructions */
> + if (name[i] == '+' || name[i] == '-')
> + i--;
> +
> + if (name[i] == 'l' || (name[i] == 'a' && name[i-1] == 'l')) {
> + /*
> + * if the instruction ends up with 'l' or 'la', then
> + * those are considered 'calls' since they update LR.
> + * ... except for 'bnl' which is branch if not less than
> + * and the absolute form of the same.
> + */
> + if (strcmp(name, "bnl") && strcmp(name, "bnl+") &&
> + strcmp(name, "bnl-") && strcmp(name, "bnla") &&
> + strcmp(name, "bnla+") && strcmp(name, "bnla-"))
> + ops = &call_ops;
> + }
> + if (name[i] == 'r' && name[i-1] == 'l')
> + /*
> + * instructions ending with 'lr' are considered to be
> + * return instructions
> + */
> + ops = &ret_ops;
> +
> + /*
> + * Add instruction to list so next time no need to
> + * allocate memory for it.
> + */
> + return list_add__ins_powerpc(&head, name, ops);
> +}
> +
> static void ins__sort(struct ins *instructions, int nmemb)
> {
> qsort(instructions, nmemb, sizeof(struct ins), ins__cmp);
> @@ -585,6 +699,8 @@ static struct ins *ins__find(const char *name, const char *norm_arch)
> } else if (!strcmp(norm_arch, NORM_ARM)) {
> instructions = instructions_arm;
> nmemb = ARRAY_SIZE(instructions_arm);
> + } else if (!strcmp(norm_arch, NORM_POWERPC)) {
> + return ins__find_powerpc(name);
> } else {
> pr_err("perf annotate not supported by %s arch\n", norm_arch);
> return NULL;
> --
> 2.5.5
Powered by blists - more mailing lists