Em Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 11:14:16AM +0530, kajoljain escreveu: > > > On 7/21/20 11:32 AM, kajoljain wrote: > > > > > > On 7/17/20 8:08 PM, Athira Rajeev wrote: > >> From: Anju T Sudhakar <anju@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Add support for perf extended register capability in powerpc. > >> The capability flag PERF_PMU_CAP_EXTENDED_REGS, is used to indicate the > >> PMU which support extended registers. The generic code define the mask > >> of extended registers as 0 for non supported architectures. > >> > >> Patch adds extended regs support for power9 platform by > >> exposing MMCR0, MMCR1 and MMCR2 registers. > >> > >> REG_RESERVED mask needs update to include extended regs. > >> `PERF_REG_EXTENDED_MASK`, contains mask value of the supported registers, > >> is defined at runtime in the kernel based on platform since the supported > >> registers may differ from one processor version to another and hence the > >> MASK value. > >> > >> with patch > >> ---------- > >> > >> available registers: r0 r1 r2 r3 r4 r5 r6 r7 r8 r9 r10 r11 > >> r12 r13 r14 r15 r16 r17 r18 r19 r20 r21 r22 r23 r24 r25 r26 > >> r27 r28 r29 r30 r31 nip msr orig_r3 ctr link xer ccr softe > >> trap dar dsisr sier mmcra mmcr0 mmcr1 mmcr2 > >> > >> PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE(IP, 0x1): 4784/4784: 0 period: 1 addr: 0 > >> ... intr regs: mask 0xffffffffffff ABI 64-bit > >> .... r0 0xc00000000012b77c > >> .... r1 0xc000003fe5e03930 > >> .... r2 0xc000000001b0e000 > >> .... r3 0xc000003fdcddf800 > >> .... r4 0xc000003fc7880000 > >> .... r5 0x9c422724be > >> .... r6 0xc000003fe5e03908 > >> .... r7 0xffffff63bddc8706 > >> .... r8 0x9e4 > >> .... r9 0x0 > >> .... r10 0x1 > >> .... r11 0x0 > >> .... r12 0xc0000000001299c0 > >> .... r13 0xc000003ffffc4800 > >> .... r14 0x0 > >> .... r15 0x7fffdd8b8b00 > >> .... r16 0x0 > >> .... r17 0x7fffdd8be6b8 > >> .... r18 0x7e7076607730 > >> .... r19 0x2f > >> .... r20 0xc00000001fc26c68 > >> .... r21 0xc0002041e4227e00 > >> .... r22 0xc00000002018fb60 > >> .... r23 0x1 > >> .... r24 0xc000003ffec4d900 > >> .... r25 0x80000000 > >> .... r26 0x0 > >> .... r27 0x1 > >> .... r28 0x1 > >> .... r29 0xc000000001be1260 > >> .... r30 0x6008010 > >> .... r31 0xc000003ffebb7218 > >> .... nip 0xc00000000012b910 > >> .... msr 0x9000000000009033 > >> .... orig_r3 0xc00000000012b86c > >> .... ctr 0xc0000000001299c0 > >> .... link 0xc00000000012b77c > >> .... xer 0x0 > >> .... ccr 0x28002222 > >> .... softe 0x1 > >> .... trap 0xf00 > >> .... dar 0x0 > >> .... dsisr 0x80000000000 > >> .... sier 0x0 > >> .... mmcra 0x80000000000 > >> .... mmcr0 0x82008090 > >> .... mmcr1 0x1e000000 > >> .... mmcr2 0x0 > >> ... thread: perf:4784 > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Anju T Sudhakar <anju@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> [Defined PERF_REG_EXTENDED_MASK at run time to add support for different platforms ] > >> Signed-off-by: Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Reviewed-by: Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > > > > Patch looks good to me. > > > > Reviewed-by: Kajol Jain <kjain@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Hi Arnaldo and Jiri, > Please let me know if you have any comments on these patches. Can you pull/ack these > patches if they seems fine to you. Can you please clarify something here, I think I saw a kernel build bot complaint followed by a fix, in these cases I think, for reviewer's sake, that this would entail a v4 patchkit? One that has no such build issues? Or have I got something wrong? - Arnaldo
