On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 02:00:04PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 02:41:23PM -0700, kan.li...@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > @@ -6274,6 +6275,7 @@ void perf_output_sample(struct perf_output_handle > > *handle, > > u64 mask = event->attr.sample_regs_user; > > perf_output_sample_regs(handle, > > data->regs_user.regs, > > + NULL, > > mask); > > } > > } > > @@ -6306,6 +6308,7 @@ void perf_output_sample(struct perf_output_handle > > *handle, > > > > perf_output_sample_regs(handle, > > data->regs_intr.regs, > > + data->extra_regs, > > mask); > > } > > } > > See, I think most of this is completely unnessecary. Both sites pass: > &perf_regs::regs to perf_output_sample_regs()<-perf_reg_value(). > > So all you need to do is add the XMM crud to perf_regs, and use > container_of() on the pt_regs pointer in perf_reg_value() to get back to > perf_regs and voila, XMM registers. Ah, that's not quite true, but I still think you can make something like that work.
