On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 02:22:13PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:04:54PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 04:46:15PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
14.99%perf [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ._raw_spin_lock
|
This implements a powerpc version of perf_arch_fetch_caller_regs.
It's implemented in assembly because that way we can be sure there
isn't a stack frame for perf_arch_fetch_caller_regs. If it was in
C, gcc might or might not create a stack frame for it, which would
affect the number of
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 04:46:15PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
This implements a powerpc version of perf_arch_fetch_caller_regs.
It's implemented in assembly because that way we can be sure there
isn't a stack frame for perf_arch_fetch_caller_regs. If it was in
C, gcc might or might not
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:04:54PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 04:46:15PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
14.99%perf [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ._raw_spin_lock
|
--- ._raw_spin_lock
This implements a powerpc version of perf_arch_fetch_caller_regs.
It's implemented in assembly because that way we can be sure there
isn't a stack frame for perf_arch_fetch_caller_regs. If it was in
C, gcc might or might not create a stack frame for it, which would
affect the number of levels we
