[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZgZxEcRuYBO3N2WY@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 08:43:13 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jolsa@...nel.org, song@...nel.org,
kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf/x86/amd: support capturing LBR from software
events
* Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org> wrote:
> Now that it's possible to capture LBR on AMD CPU from BPF at arbitrary
> point, there is no reason to artificially limit this feature to sampling
> events. So corresponding check is removed. AFAIU, there is no
> correctness implications of doing this (and it was possible to bypass
> this check by just setting perf_event's sample_period to 1 anyways, so
> it doesn't guard all that much).
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/amd/lbr.c b/arch/x86/events/amd/lbr.c
> index 4a1e600314d5..75920f895d67 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/amd/lbr.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/amd/lbr.c
> @@ -310,10 +310,6 @@ int amd_pmu_lbr_hw_config(struct perf_event *event)
> {
> int ret = 0;
>
> - /* LBR is not recommended in counting mode */
> - if (!is_sampling_event(event))
> - return -EINVAL;
> -
Could you please split out this change into a separate patch?
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists