> > You add an ABI sample type without mentioning it in your changelog.. I
> > think I'll stop reading here.
> >
> Ok, I will add the ABI change to the change log. Do you think we should hide
> this
> branch sample type from user?
Yes I would hide it. No need to expose, except as a callstack.
-
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> On 10/22/2012 06:35 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 14:11 +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
>>> @@ -160,8 +160,9 @@ enum perf_branch_sample_type {
>>>
On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 13:41 +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> On 10/22/2012 06:35 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 14:11 +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> >> --- a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
> >> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
> >> @@ -160,8 +160,9 @@ enum perf_branch_sample_type {
On 10/22/2012 06:35 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 14:11 +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
>> @@ -160,8 +160,9 @@ enum perf_branch_sample_type {
>> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ABORT= 1U << 7, /* trans
On 10/22/2012 07:23 PM, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Peter Zijlstra
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 14:11 +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
>>> + /* LBR callstack does not work well with FREEZE_LBRS_ON_PMI */
>>> + if (!cpuc->lbr_sel || !(cpuc->lbr_sel->conf
On 10/22/2012 06:33 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 14:11 +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
>> + /* LBR callstack does not work well with FREEZE_LBRS_ON_PMI */
>> + if (!cpuc->lbr_sel || !(cpuc->lbr_sel->config & LBR_CALL_STACK))
>> + debugctl |= DEBUGCTLMSR_FREEZ
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:35:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 14:11 +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
> > @@ -160,8 +160,9 @@ enum perf_branch_sample_type {
> > PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ABORT
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:33:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 14:11 +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> > + /* LBR callstack does not work well with FREEZE_LBRS_ON_PMI */
> > + if (!cpuc->lbr_sel || !(cpuc->lbr_sel->config & LBR_CALL_STACK))
> > + debugctl
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 14:11 +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> > + /* LBR callstack does not work well with FREEZE_LBRS_ON_PMI */
> > + if (!cpuc->lbr_sel || !(cpuc->lbr_sel->config & LBR_CALL_STACK))
> > + debugctl |= D
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 14:11 +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
> @@ -160,8 +160,9 @@ enum perf_branch_sample_type {
> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ABORT= 1U << 7, /* transaction aborts */
> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_INTX
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 14:11 +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> + /* LBR callstack does not work well with FREEZE_LBRS_ON_PMI */
> + if (!cpuc->lbr_sel || !(cpuc->lbr_sel->config & LBR_CALL_STACK))
> + debugctl |= DEBUGCTLMSR_FREEZE_LBRS_ON_PMI;
How useful it is without this? How
From: "Yan, Zheng"
The new HSW call stack feature provides a facility such that
unfiltered call data will be collected as normal, but as return
instructions are executed the last captured branch record is
popped from the LBR stack. Thus, branch information relative to
leaf functions will not be c
From: "Yan, Zheng"
The new HSW call stack feature provides a facility such that
unfiltered call data will be collected as normal, but as return
instructions are executed the last captured branch record is
popped from the LBR stack. Thus, branch information relative to
leaf functions will not be c
13 matches
Mail list logo
