[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM9d7chSavuxXJG8M9LMVWZfJXJPjQ3M4aLTKGsixmKef0-bkw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:29:13 -0700
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc: Anne Macedo <retpolanne@...teo.net>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] perf lock contention: skip traceiter functions
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 12:53 PM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
<acme@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 07:25:16PM +0000, Anne Macedo wrote:
> > Anne Macedo <retpolanne@...teo.net> writes:
> > > Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> writes:
> > >> I think it depends on the kernel version and configuration. I remember
> > >> I saw a different symbol on old kernels. But it'd be hard to handle all
> > >> the cases. Let's have a single trace text section in the struct machine
> > >> and use __traceiter_contention_begin only. If it's not found you can
> > >> fallback to trace_contention_begin.
>
> > However, if we fallback to trace_contention_begin, we won't be able to
> > filter out both __traceiter_contention_begin and trace_contention_begin
> > at the same time.
>
> I think for ARM we need to skip both, no? I.e. I agree with Anne.
I haven't tested it on ARM, please go ahead if it is needed.
Thanks,
Namhyung
Powered by blists - more mailing lists