On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 01:13:57PM +, Andrew Murray wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 02:10:31PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 01:07:41PM +, Andrew Murray wrote:
> >
> > > Yes I found lots of examples like this across the tree whilst doing this
> > > work. However
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 02:10:31PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 01:07:41PM +, Andrew Murray wrote:
>
> > Yes I found lots of examples like this across the tree whilst doing this
> > work. However I decided to initially start with simply removing duplicated
> > code as
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 01:07:41PM +, Andrew Murray wrote:
> Yes I found lots of examples like this across the tree whilst doing this
> work. However I decided to initially start with simply removing duplicated
> code as a result of adding this flag and attempting to preserve existing
> functi
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 11:28:02AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 04:27:22PM +, Andrew Murray wrote:
> > @@ -393,9 +386,8 @@ __hw_perf_event_init(struct perf_event *event)
> > /*
> > * Check whether we need to exclude the counter from certain modes.
> > */
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 04:27:22PM +, Andrew Murray wrote:
> @@ -393,9 +386,8 @@ __hw_perf_event_init(struct perf_event *event)
> /*
>* Check whether we need to exclude the counter from certain modes.
>*/
> + if (armpmu->set_event_filter &&
> + armpmu->set_even
The ARM PMU driver can be used to represent a variety of ARM based
PMUs. Some of these PMUs do not provide support for context
exclusion, where this is the case we advertise the
PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_EXCLUDE capability to ensure that perf prevents us
from handling events where any exclusion flags are set
