On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 08:58:17AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 02:52:35AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > > The series is not yet mergeable because it would break PowerPc (hot regs > > > snapshot API has been changed, and I don't know how to update PowerPc for > > > that). > > > > > > But if you're fine with the ideas, I can integrate the necessary changes > > > to fix this, and also separate fixes and updates. > > > > The patch below adds the necessary stuff for powerpc. You could fold it > > into your "perf: Move perf_arch_fetch_caller_regs into a macro" patch, or > > keep it as a separate patch in the series (though that would make preserving > > bisectability more difficult). > > Since the series needs a resend anyway folding back ought to be fine i think. > > I'm wondering whether this should get into tip:perf/urgent - or in > tip:perf/core for 2.6.35. > > It fixes sw event call trace ugliness, but is that a 2.6.34 regression? Is > there any other aspect of the series that points towards accelerating this > into .34? Let's have a look: perf: Correctly align perf event tracing buffer Should probably go into urgent. The change is not invasive at all. It doesn't fix a regression but it's still an important fix. The rest It depends. The whole bunch is rather invasive. The callchains of context switches never worked correctly I think. I couldn't tell if the cpu migration has ever worked. If it ever did, then it's a regression fix but in the middle of too much hot regs improvements. So I can cook a specific fix for the cpu migration event to work, and keep the rest for perf/core. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
