[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ca8de228-68c2-4b2c-bb58-30f275afc49e@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 16:47:22 +0000
From: James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>
To: mark.barnett@....com
Cc: ben.gainey@....com, deepak.surti@....com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
will@...nel.org, james.clark@....com, mark.rutland@....com,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
adrian.hunter@...el.com, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org,
namhyung@...nel.org, irogers@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] A mechanism for efficient support for per-function
metrics
On 06/01/2025 12:01 pm, mark.barnett@....com wrote:
> From: Mark Barnett <mark.barnett@....com>
>
> This patch introduces the concept of an alternating sample rate to perf
> core and provides the necessary basic changes in the tools to activate
> that option.
>
[...]
> Changes since v1:
> - Rebased onto perf-tools-next, as per request from Ian Rogers.
> - Removed unnecessary code that truncated period_left to 0 and restarted
> the PMU.
> - Renamed variables to use the shorter 'alt_period' instead of
> 'alterantive_period'.
> - Added patch #5 that addresses an issue in the x86 and PowerPC drivers that
> caused the opposite period to be reported in the sample record.
>
It sounds like it would be better if patch 5 comes first otherwise the
feature is introduced as broken.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists