>Your patch seems to be still word wrapped.
I hope this is better with the next version I'm going to
send out in a few minutes. Sorry about that.
>The noflags variant should be probably data driven too.
I rewrote the entire code to use an offset/size configuration
instead of declaring structs f
On Wednesday 21 November 2007 12:02:38 Metzger, Markus T wrote:
Your patch seems to be still word wrapped.
>
> It seems we're avoiding to declare a structured data type and instead
> prefer to describe the type indirectly.
> We gain the flexibility to work with different data layouts.
> We loo
Hi,
> >and it seems like this patch and perfmon2 are going to have to
> >live with
> >each other... since they both require the use of the DS save area...
>
> Hmmm, this might require some synchronization between those two.
>
> Do you know how (accesses to) MSR's are managed by the kernel?
Th
>> - the internal buffer interpretation as well as the corresponding
>> operations are selected at run-time by hardware detection
>> - different processors use different branch record formats
>
>I still think it would be far better if you would switch this
>over to be table
>driven. e.g. defin
> >and it seems like this patch and perfmon2 are going to have to
> >live with
> >each other... since they both require the use of the DS save area...
>
> Hmmm, this might require some synchronization between those two.
>
> Do you know how (accesses to) MSR's are managed by the kernel?
There
t;B; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [patch][v2] x86, ptrace: support for branch trace
>store(BTS)
>
>On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, dean gaudet wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Metzger, Markus T wrote:
>>
>> > +__cpuinit void ptrace_bts_init_intel(struct cpuinfo_x
> We might want to add support for Netburst in 64bit mode some day.
> For today, I simply exclude Netburst for x86_64.
If you switched to table driven then adding another format like
this would be likely very easy. It's just that with the "own code for
everything"
method it becomes difficult.
t;B; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [patch][v2] x86, ptrace: support for branch trace
>store(BTS)
>
>On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Metzger, Markus T wrote:
>
>> +__cpuinit void ptrace_bts_init_intel(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
>> +{
>> +switch (c->x86) {
>> +case 0
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, dean gaudet wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Metzger, Markus T wrote:
>
> > +__cpuinit void ptrace_bts_init_intel(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> > +{
> > + switch (c->x86) {
> > + case 0x6:
> > + switch (c->x86_model) {
> > +#ifdef __i386__
> > + case 0xD:
> >
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Metzger, Markus T wrote:
> +__cpuinit void ptrace_bts_init_intel(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> +{
> + switch (c->x86) {
> + case 0x6:
> + switch (c->x86_model) {
> +#ifdef __i386__
> + case 0xD:
> + case 0xE: /* Pentium M */
> +
> - the internal buffer interpretation as well as the corresponding
> operations are selected at run-time by hardware detection
> - different processors use different branch record formats
I still think it would be far better if you would switch this over to be table
driven. e.g. define a rec
Changes to previous version:
- moved task arrives/departs notifications to __switch_to_xtra()
- added _TIF_BTS_TRACE and _TIF_BTS_TRACE_TS to _TIF_WORK_CTXSW_*
- split _TIF_WORK_CTXSW into ~_PREV and ~_NEXT for x86_64
- ptrace_bts_init_intel() function called from init_intel()
- removed PTRACE_BTS_
12 matches
Mail list logo
