* Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> 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-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
