On 08/08/2017 08:05 PM, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> Add support for the new speculative faults events.
>
> Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h | 2 ++
> tools/perf/util/evsel.c | 2 ++
> tools/perf/util/parse-events.c | 8 ++++++++
> tools/perf/util/parse-events.l | 2 ++
> tools/perf/util/python.c | 2 ++
> 5 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h b/tools/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
> index b1c0b187acfe..fbfb03dff334 100644
> --- a/tools/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
> +++ b/tools/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
> @@ -111,6 +111,8 @@ enum perf_sw_ids {
> PERF_COUNT_SW_EMULATION_FAULTS = 8,
> PERF_COUNT_SW_DUMMY = 9,
> PERF_COUNT_SW_BPF_OUTPUT = 10,
> + PERF_COUNT_SW_SPF_DONE = 11,
> + PERF_COUNT_SW_SPF_FAILED = 12,
>
PERF_COUNT_SW_SPF_FAULTS makes sense but not the FAILED one. IIRC,
there are no error path counting in perf SW events at the moment.
SPF_FAULTS and SPF_FAILS are VM internal events like THP collapse
etc. IMHO it should be added as a VM statistics counter or as a
trace point event instead.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
