[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87h94kbt29.fsf@ashishki-desk.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 14:12:14 +0200
From: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
vince@...ter.net, eranian@...gle.com,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf, pt, coresight: Clean up address filter structure
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org> writes:
> Hi Alex,
Hi Mathieu,
> This changes the behavior we used to have. Now a range filter with a size of 0
> will be treated as start filter rather than an error. See below on a possible
> way of fixing this.
Not really. Currently we have 2 drivers using this and both reject the
type=range&&size==0 filters with either -EOPNOTSUPP or -EINVAL. With
this change, PT will still reject it as it doesn't support single
address triggers, but Coresight will treat it as if it was a single
address filter. Which makes sense, because that's what a range of size
zero is. Note, that a range that covers one instruction has to be at
least size==1 (and I'm guessing size==4 for Coresight, but I may be
wrong).
So yes, this does change the existing behavior, but in doing so it
removes the ambiguity of zero sized ranges.
> if (filter->action == PERF_ADDR_FILTER_ACTION_RANGE)
But "range" is not an action, it's a type of a filter. It determines the
condition that triggers an action. An action, however, is what we do
when the condition comes true.
Regards,
--
Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists