On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 11:10:23AM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> I was about to agree, but now I'm not so sure. I don't know much
> about these PMC things, but at a glance it looks like what is reserved
> by x86_reserve_hardware() may later be released by x86_release_hardware(),
> and then later
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 11:10:23AM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> I was about to agree, but now I'm not so sure. I don't know much
> about these PMC things, but at a glance it looks like what is reserved
> by x86_reserve_hardware() may later be released by x86_release_hardware(),
> and then later
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 11/14/2017 10:20 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:31:39AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> >> static int alloc_ds_buffer(int cpu)
>> >> {
>> >> + struct
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 11/14/2017 10:20 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:31:39AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> >> static int alloc_ds_buffer(int cpu)
>> >> {
>> >> + struct debug_store *ds =
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/14/2017 10:20 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:31:39AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> static int alloc_ds_buffer(int cpu)
> >> {
> >> + struct debug_store *ds = per_cpu_ptr(_debug_store, cpu);
> >>
> >> + memset(ds, 0,
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/14/2017 10:20 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:31:39AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> static int alloc_ds_buffer(int cpu)
> >> {
> >> + struct debug_store *ds = per_cpu_ptr(_debug_store, cpu);
> >>
> >> + memset(ds, 0,
On 11/14/2017 10:20 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:31:39AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> static int alloc_ds_buffer(int cpu)
>> {
>> +struct debug_store *ds = per_cpu_ptr(_debug_store, cpu);
>>
>> +memset(ds, 0, sizeof(*ds));
> Still wondering about that
On 11/14/2017 10:20 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:31:39AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> static int alloc_ds_buffer(int cpu)
>> {
>> +struct debug_store *ds = per_cpu_ptr(_debug_store, cpu);
>>
>> +memset(ds, 0, sizeof(*ds));
> Still wondering about that
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:31:39AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> static int alloc_ds_buffer(int cpu)
> {
> + struct debug_store *ds = per_cpu_ptr(_debug_store, cpu);
>
> + memset(ds, 0, sizeof(*ds));
Still wondering about that memset...
> per_cpu(cpu_hw_events, cpu).ds = ds;
>
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:31:39AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> static int alloc_ds_buffer(int cpu)
> {
> + struct debug_store *ds = per_cpu_ptr(_debug_store, cpu);
>
> + memset(ds, 0, sizeof(*ds));
Still wondering about that memset...
> per_cpu(cpu_hw_events, cpu).ds = ds;
>
On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 11:47:20AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> +static
> +DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED_USER_MAPPED(struct debug_store,
> cpu_debug_store);
> +
> /* The size of a BTS record in bytes: */
> #define BTS_RECORD_SIZE 24
>
> @@ -278,6 +282,39 @@ void
On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 11:47:20AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> +static
> +DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED_USER_MAPPED(struct debug_store,
> cpu_debug_store);
> +
> /* The size of a BTS record in bytes: */
> #define BTS_RECORD_SIZE 24
>
> @@ -278,6 +282,39 @@ void
12 matches
Mail list logo