[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <362032af-382e-d367-a655-1c25407309a0@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2023 23:11:25 +0100
From: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
To: James Clark <james.clark@....com>, coresight@...ts.linaro.org,
denik@...omium.org
Cc: Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>, Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] perf cs-etm: Only track threads instead of PID and
TIDs
On 24/05/2023 14:19, James Clark wrote:
> PIDs and TIDs are already contained within the thread struct, so to
> avoid inconsistencies drop the extra members on the etm queue and only
> use the thread struct.
>
> At the same time stop using the 'unknown' thread. In a later commit
> we will be making samples from multiple machines so it will be better
> to use the idle thread of each machine rather than overlapping unknown
> threads. Using the idle thread is also better because kernel addresses
> with a previously unknown thread will now be assigned to a real kernel
> thread.
>
> Signed-off-by: James Clark <james.clark@....com>
Acked-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists