[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170307102359.GE6515@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 11:23:59 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: mpe@...erman.id.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] powerpc/perf: Define big-endian version of
perf_mem_data_src
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 03:28:17PM +0530, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
>
>
> On Monday 06 March 2017 04:52 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 04:13:08PM +0530, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
> >>From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>
> >>perf_mem_data_src is an union that is initialized via the ->val field
> >>and accessed via the bitmap fields. For this to work on big endian
> >>platforms, we also need a big-endian represenation of perf_mem_data_src.
> >Doesn't this break interpreting the data on a different endian machine?
>
> IIUC, we will need this patch to not to break the interpreting data
> on a different endian machine. Data collected from power8 LE/BE
> guests with this patchset applied. Kindly correct me if I missed
> your question here.
So your patch adds compile time bitfield differences. My worry was that
there was no dynamic conversion routine in the tools (it has for a lot
of other places).
This yields two questions:
- are these two static layouts identical? (seeing that you illustrate
cross-endian things working this seems likely).
- should you not have fixed this in the tool only? This patch
effectively breaks ABI on big-endian architectures.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists