* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 11:02 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Ingo, do you want me to do a version where I simply bail on everything > > if regs->{cs,ss} != {__USER_CS, __USER32_CS} || regs->flags & VM ? > > Here's a variant that does that.. > arch/x86/include/asm/perf_event.h | 11 +++++-- > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.h | 20 +++++++++++++ > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_amd_ibs.c | 4 +- > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_ds.c | 7 ++-- > 5 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) this is the full thing: > arch/x86/include/asm/perf_event.h | 11 ++- > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c | 89 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.h | 20 ++++++ > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_amd_ibs.c | 4 + > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_ds.c | 7 +- > 5 files changed, 114 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) so that's 40 LOC difference. Hm, I expected there to be more of a difference, so let me change my mind again in view of the evidence: now I tend to lean Linus's way, we might as well apply those extra 40 lines now that you've written them :-) Even if it is not enough to do proper segmented profiling, should anyone be interested in such a profiling mode they'll have a much easier job making it work, the rest looks mostly a user space side job. Your larger patch looks safe enough at the boundaries. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html