Hi,
Following branch types should be common enough, right?
+ PERF_BR_COND = 1, /* conditional */
+ PERF_BR_UNCOND = 2, /* unconditional */
+ PERF_BR_IND = 3, /* indirect */
+ PERF_BR_CALL = 4, /* call */
+ PERF_BR_IND_CALL = 5, /* indirect call */
+ PERF_BR_RET = 6, /* return */
I decide to only define these types in this patch set. For other more
arch-related branch type, we can add it in future.
Is this OK?
Thanks
Jin Yao
On 7/10/2017 9:10 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi!
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 07:46:17PM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote:
1. We all agree these definitions:
+ PERF_BR_COND = 1, /* conditional */
+ PERF_BR_UNCOND = 2, /* unconditional */
+ PERF_BR_IND = 3, /* indirect */
+ PERF_BR_CALL = 4, /* call */
+ PERF_BR_IND_CALL = 5, /* indirect call */
+ PERF_BR_RET = 6, /* return */
+ PERF_BR_SYSCALL = 7, /* syscall */
+ PERF_BR_SYSRET = 8, /* syscall return */
+ PERF_BR_IRET = 11, /* return from interrupt */
Do we? It does not map very well to PowerPC branch types.
2. I wish to keep following definitions for x86.
+ PERF_BR_IRQ = 9, /* hw interrupt/trap/fault */
+ PERF_BR_INT = 10, /* sw interrupt */
PERF_BR_INT is triggered by instruction "int" .
PERF_BR_IRQ is triggered by interrupts, traps, faults (the ring 0,3
transition).
So your "PERF_BR_INT" is a system call? And PERF_BR_IRQ is not an
interrupt request (as its name suggests), not what we call an "external
interrupt" either; instead it is every interrupt that is not a system
call?
It also does not follow the lines of "software caused interrupt" vs.
the rest.
4. I'd like to add following types for powerpc.
PERF_BR_COND_CALL /* Conditional call */
PERF_BR_COND_RET /* Condition return */
Almost all PowerPC branches have a "conditional" version (only "syscall"
and "sysret/iret" do not -- and those last two are the same, just like
PERF_BR_INT seems to be the same as PERF_BR_SYSCALL).
So how should those PERF_BR_* be used? It cannot be used in an
architecture-neutral interface the way you define it now.
Segher
