[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zxk5_OaAWdiVZhvr@google.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 11:01:32 -0700
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
James Clark <james.clark@....com>, Kajol Jain <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>,
Thomas Richter <tmricht@...ux.ibm.com>,
Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>,
Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 0/9] perf tools: Do not set attr.exclude_guest by
default (v5)
On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 11:23:50PM -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I found perf tools set exclude_guest bit inconsistently. It used to
> set the bit but now the default event for perf record doesn't. So I'm
> wondering why we want the bit in the first place.
>
> Actually it's not good for PMUs don't support any exclusion like AMD
> IBS because it disables new features after the exclude_guest due to
> the missing feature detection logic.
>
> [...]
Applied to perf-tools-next, thanks!
Best regards,
Namhyung
Powered by blists - more mailing lists