Will Deacon [will.dea...@arm.com] wrote:
| On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 04:17:06AM +0100, Jed Davis wrote:
| > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 02:13:19PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
| > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:21:11AM +0100, Jed Davis wrote:
| > > > With this change, we no longer lose the innermost entry in
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 04:17:06AM +0100, Jed Davis wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 02:13:19PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:21:11AM +0100, Jed Davis wrote:
> > > With this change, we no longer lose the innermost entry in the user-mode
> > > part of the call chain. See
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 02:13:19PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:21:11AM +0100, Jed Davis wrote:
> > With this change, we no longer lose the innermost entry in the user-mode
> > part of the call chain. See also the x86 port, which includes the ip.
> >
> > It's possible to
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:21:11AM +0100, Jed Davis wrote:
> With this change, we no longer lose the innermost entry in the user-mode
> part of the call chain. See also the x86 port, which includes the ip.
>
> It's possible to partially work around this problem by post-processing
> the data to us
With this change, we no longer lose the innermost entry in the user-mode
part of the call chain. See also the x86 port, which includes the ip.
It's possible to partially work around this problem by post-processing
the data to use the PERF_SAMPLE_IP value, but this works only if the CPU
wasn't in
5 matches
Mail list logo