linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] tools/perf: Support pipeline stage cycles for powerpc

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YE/rS5jZLA0RHYZG@krava>
Date:   Tue, 16 Mar 2021 00:18:35 +0100
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:     Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, acme@...nel.org,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, jolsa@...nel.org,
        kjain@...ux.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        kan.liang@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] tools/perf: Support pipeline stage cycles for powerpc

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 01:22:09PM +0530, Athira Rajeev wrote:

SNIP

> +
> +static char *setup_dynamic_sort_keys(char *str)
> +{
> +	unsigned int j;
> +
> +	if (sort__mode == SORT_MODE__MEMORY)
> +		for (j = 0; j < ARRAY_SIZE(dynamic_sort_keys_mem); j++)
> +			if (arch_support_dynamic_key(dynamic_sort_keys_mem[j])) {
> +				str = suffix_if_not_in(dynamic_sort_keys_mem[j], str);
> +				if (str == NULL)
> +					return str;
> +			}
> +
> +	return str;
> +}
> +
>  static int __setup_sorting(struct evlist *evlist)
>  {
>  	char *str;
> @@ -3050,6 +3085,12 @@ static int __setup_sorting(struct evlist *evlist)
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> +	str = setup_dynamic_sort_keys(str);
> +	if (str == NULL) {
> +		pr_err("Not enough memory to setup dynamic sort keys");
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +	}

hum, so this is basicaly overloading the default_mem_sort_order for
architecture, right?

then I think it'd be easier just overload default_mem_sort_order directly

I was thinking more about adding extra (arch specific) loop to
sort_dimension__add or somehow add arch's specific stuff to
memory_sort_dimensions

jirka