Nicholas Piggin wrote:
Naveen N. Rao's on June 19, 2019 7:53 pm:
Nicholas Piggin wrote:
Michael Ellerman's on June 19, 2019 3:14 pm:
I'm also not convinced the ordering between the two patches is
guaranteed by the ISA, given that there's possibly no isync on the other
CPU.
Will they go
Naveen N. Rao's on June 19, 2019 7:53 pm:
> Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>> Michael Ellerman's on June 19, 2019 3:14 pm:
>>> Hi Naveen,
>>>
>>> Sorry I meant to reply to this earlier .. :/
>
> No problem. Thanks for the questions.
>
>>>
>>> "Naveen N. Rao" writes:
With -mprofile-kernel, gcc
Nicholas Piggin wrote:
Michael Ellerman's on June 19, 2019 3:14 pm:
Hi Naveen,
Sorry I meant to reply to this earlier .. :/
No problem. Thanks for the questions.
"Naveen N. Rao" writes:
With -mprofile-kernel, gcc emits 'mflr r0', followed by 'bl _mcount' to
enable function tracing and
Michael Ellerman's on June 19, 2019 3:14 pm:
> Hi Naveen,
>
> Sorry I meant to reply to this earlier .. :/
>
> "Naveen N. Rao" writes:
>> With -mprofile-kernel, gcc emits 'mflr r0', followed by 'bl _mcount' to
>> enable function tracing and profiling. So far, with dynamic ftrace, we
>> used to
Hi Naveen,
Sorry I meant to reply to this earlier .. :/
"Naveen N. Rao" writes:
> With -mprofile-kernel, gcc emits 'mflr r0', followed by 'bl _mcount' to
> enable function tracing and profiling. So far, with dynamic ftrace, we
> used to only patch out the branch to _mcount(). However, mflr is
>
With -mprofile-kernel, gcc emits 'mflr r0', followed by 'bl _mcount' to
enable function tracing and profiling. So far, with dynamic ftrace, we
used to only patch out the branch to _mcount(). However, mflr is
executed by the branch unit that can only execute one per cycle on
POWER9 and shared with
6 matches
Mail list logo
