On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>
> Ok, I tried to reproduce this on my TC2 with 3.10-rc1 and perf top looks
> fine. I also tried loading your spi-altera module and it made no difference.
>
> I'm using a fairly old perf tool (reports its version as 3.5.5).
It isn't related wi
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 11:07:37AM +0100, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:48:23AM +0100, Ming Lei wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >> >
> >> > It's probably easier if you choose a workload, other
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:48:23AM +0100, Ming Lei wrote:
>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> >
>> > It's probably easier if you choose a workload, otherwise it's difficult to
>> > see what is `correct' and what is broken
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:48:23AM +0100, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >
> > It's probably easier if you choose a workload, otherwise it's difficult to
> > see what is `correct' and what is broken. For example, your broken output
> > seems to be in the sm
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>
> It's probably easier if you choose a workload, otherwise it's difficult to
> see what is `correct' and what is broken. For example, your broken output
> seems to be in the smsc95xx driver, so assumedly there's a bunch of
> networking going on
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:27:05AM +0100, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >
> > So it's still the morning and I haven't had my coffee yet, but I'm really
> > struggling to see what you're getting at. Why does this have anything to do
> > with perf?
>
> I do
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>
> So it's still the morning and I haven't had my coffee yet, but I'm really
> struggling to see what you're getting at. Why does this have anything to do
> with perf?
I don't know, and I just report it out, :-)
I found the problem days ago, a
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 03:16:40AM +0100, Ming Lei wrote:
> Hi,
Hello,
> The commit a43cb95d5(dump_stack: unify debug information printed by
> show_regs())
> caused ARM perf regression, then 'perf top' outputs mistakenly, see
> [1]. The correct
> output should be [2], which can be got after rev
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
> index f219703..89bc3a4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
> @@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ void __show_regs(struct pt_regs *regs)
> unsigned
9 matches
Mail list logo
