On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 17:40 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > On 06/10/2015 11:19 AM, Daniel Axtens wrote: > > On Mon, 2015-06-08 at 17:08 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > >> > The kernel now supports SW based branch filters for book3s systems with > >> > some specific requirements while dealing with HW supported branch filters > >> > in order to achieve overall OR semantics prevailing in perf branch stack > >> > sampling framework. This patch adapts the BHRB branch filter > >> > configuration > >> > to meet those protocols. POWER8 PMU can only handle one HW based branch > >> > filter request at any point of time. For all other combinations PMU will > >> > pass it on to the SW. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <[email protected]> > >> > --- > >> > arch/powerpc/perf/power8-pmu.c | 51 > >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > >> > 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > >> > > >> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/perf/power8-pmu.c > >> > b/arch/powerpc/perf/power8-pmu.c > >> > index 5e17cb5..8fccf6c 100644 > >> > --- a/arch/powerpc/perf/power8-pmu.c > >> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/perf/power8-pmu.c > >> > @@ -656,6 +656,16 @@ static int power8_generic_events[] = { > >> > > > This is, I think, the third time you've modified this function in this > > patch series. I appreciate the fact that you're trying to keep logical > > changes separate, but it seems to me like this change might be able to > > be combined with patch 4, and given a single commit message that clearly > > explains the complete scope of the changes. > > Here I have to disagree with you. The changes in this patch like PMU > should not handle multiple filter requests as it does not support the > OR semantic required in the protocol, the fact that we need to pass > on the entire branch filtering responsibility to the SW comes into > picture after we have enabled the SW branch filtering support in the > previous patch. So these changes have to follow that up logically and > sequentially in that order. > OK. I don't think I understand the patch set quite well enough to follow your logic, but when you send out the next version I'll try to take a closer look at how the series fits together as a whole.
-- Regards, Daniel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
