[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <D501C4AD-3778-431B-A710-3399BFE6EE56@fb.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2021 16:50:34 +0000
From: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"kjain@...ux.ibm.com" <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>,
Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 1/3] perf: enable branch record for software
events
> On Sep 3, 2021, at 1:02 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 09:57:04AM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
>> +static int
>> +intel_pmu_snapshot_branch_stack(struct perf_branch_entry *entries, unsigned int cnt)
>> +{
>> + struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events);
>> +
>> + intel_pmu_disable_all();
>> + intel_pmu_lbr_read();
>> + cnt = min_t(unsigned int, cnt, x86_pmu.lbr_nr);
>> +
>> + memcpy(entries, cpuc->lbr_entries, sizeof(struct perf_branch_entry) * cnt);
>> + intel_pmu_enable_all(0);
>> + return cnt;
>> +}
>
> Would something like the below help get rid of that memcpy() ?
>
> (compile tested only)
We can get rid of the memcpy. But we will need an extra "size" or "num_entries"
parameter for intel_pmu_lbr_read. I can add this change in the next version.
Thanks,
Song
Powered by blists - more mailing lists