On 7/17/2017 4:11 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 07:06:38PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
SNIP
+#define X86_BR_TYPE_MAP_MAX 16
+
+static int
+common_branch_type(int type)
+{
+ int i;
+ const int branch_map[X86_BR_TYPE_MAP_MAX] = {
+ PERF_BR_CALL, /* X86_BR_CALL */
+ PERF_BR_RET, /* X86_BR_RET */
+ PERF_BR_SYSCALL, /* X86_BR_SYSCALL */
+ PERF_BR_SYSRET, /* X86_BR_SYSRET */
+ PERF_BR_UNKNOWN, /* X86_BR_INT */
+ PERF_BR_UNKNOWN, /* X86_BR_IRET */
+ PERF_BR_COND, /* X86_BR_JCC */
+ PERF_BR_UNCOND, /* X86_BR_JMP */
+ PERF_BR_UNKNOWN, /* X86_BR_IRQ */
+ PERF_BR_IND_CALL, /* X86_BR_IND_CALL */
+ PERF_BR_UNKNOWN, /* X86_BR_ABORT */
+ PERF_BR_UNKNOWN, /* X86_BR_IN_TX */
+ PERF_BR_UNKNOWN, /* X86_BR_NO_TX */
+ PERF_BR_CALL, /* X86_BR_ZERO_CALL */
+ PERF_BR_UNKNOWN, /* X86_BR_CALL_STACK */
+ PERF_BR_IND, /* X86_BR_IND_JMP */
+ };
should the branch_map array be static? having it on stack makes
the compiler to create it every time we call the function
jirka
OK, agree to let branch_map array be static. I will add this in v10.
I'm also waiting for Peter's review comments for this patch update.
Thanks
Jin Yao
+
+ type >>= 2; /* skip X86_BR_USER and X86_BR_KERNEL */
+
+ if (type) {
+ i = __ffs(type);
+ if (i < X86_BR_TYPE_MAP_MAX)
+ return branch_map[i];
+ }
+
+ return PERF_BR_UNKNOWN;
+}
+
/*
* implement actual branch filter based on user demand.
* Hardware may not exactly satisfy that request, thus
@@ -942,7 +987,8 @@ intel_pmu_lbr_filter(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc)
bool compress = false;
/* if sampling all branches, then nothing to filter */
- if ((br_sel & X86_BR_ALL) == X86_BR_ALL)
+ if (((br_sel & X86_BR_ALL) == X86_BR_ALL) &&
+ ((br_sel & X86_BR_TYPE_SAVE) != X86_BR_TYPE_SAVE))
return;
for (i = 0; i < cpuc->lbr_stack.nr; i++) {
@@ -963,6 +1009,9 @@ intel_pmu_lbr_filter(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc)
cpuc->lbr_entries[i].from = 0;
compress = true;
}
+
+ if ((br_sel & X86_BR_TYPE_SAVE) == X86_BR_TYPE_SAVE)
+ cpuc->lbr_entries[i].type = common_branch_type(type);
}
if (!compress)
--
2.7.4
