On 2/5/2021 5:43 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 12:24 AM Liang, Kan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/4/2021 9:00 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
Hi Kan,
On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 2:25 AM Liang, Kan <[email protected]> wrote:
[SNIP]
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
index b15e344..c50718a 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
@@ -145,12 +145,14 @@ enum perf_event_sample_format {
PERF_SAMPLE_CGROUP = 1U << 21,
PERF_SAMPLE_DATA_PAGE_SIZE = 1U << 22,
PERF_SAMPLE_CODE_PAGE_SIZE = 1U << 23,
+ PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT = 1U << 24,
- PERF_SAMPLE_MAX = 1U << 24, /* non-ABI */
+ PERF_SAMPLE_MAX = 1U << 25, /* non-ABI */
__PERF_SAMPLE_CALLCHAIN_EARLY = 1ULL << 63, /* non-ABI;
internal use */
};
+#define PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_TYPE (PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT |
PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT)
I'm not sure you want to expose it in the uapi header as it's not
intended to be used IMHO.
I'm not sure I understood, but it's indeed used in the tool patch set.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
Well, it's not a big deal.. but I just worried if some users might do
event.attr.sample_type = PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_TYPE;
Yes, it's possible. For this case, Kernel returns -EINVAL.
Actually, even without the macro, users may still set PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT
| PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT manually. We cannot control what a user
sets. I don't think it's a problem as long as the kernel can handle it
properly.
Thanks,
Kan
