Hi Arnaldo, Rob,
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 12:27:13PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Fri, May 25, 2018 at 03:03:47PM +0100, Robert Walker escreveu:
> > Hi Leo,
> >
> > Following the discussions from your reply to this with a simplified patch,
> > this version of the patch works better
Hi Arnaldo, Rob,
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 12:27:13PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Fri, May 25, 2018 at 03:03:47PM +0100, Robert Walker escreveu:
> > Hi Leo,
> >
> > Following the discussions from your reply to this with a simplified patch,
> > this version of the patch works better
Em Fri, May 25, 2018 at 03:03:47PM +0100, Robert Walker escreveu:
> Hi Leo,
>
> Following the discussions from your reply to this with a simplified patch,
> this version of the patch works better as you also need to emit a branch
> sample when handling a CS_ETM_TRACE_ON packet to indicate the end
Em Fri, May 25, 2018 at 03:03:47PM +0100, Robert Walker escreveu:
> Hi Leo,
>
> Following the discussions from your reply to this with a simplified patch,
> this version of the patch works better as you also need to emit a branch
> sample when handling a CS_ETM_TRACE_ON packet to indicate the end
Hi Leo,
Following the discussions from your reply to this with a simplified
patch, this version of the patch works better as you also need to emit a
branch sample when handling a CS_ETM_TRACE_ON packet to indicate the end
of a block of trace.
This patch does not break the output from perf
Hi Leo,
Following the discussions from your reply to this with a simplified
patch, this version of the patch works better as you also need to emit a
branch sample when handling a CS_ETM_TRACE_ON packet to indicate the end
of a block of trace.
This patch does not break the output from perf
Hi Leo,
On 23/05/18 14:22, Leo Yan wrote:
Hi Rob,
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:21:18PM +0100, Robert Walker wrote:
Hi Leo,
On 22/05/18 10:52, Leo Yan wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 04:39:20PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
[...]
Rather than the patch I posted in my previous email, I think below new
Hi Leo,
On 23/05/18 14:22, Leo Yan wrote:
Hi Rob,
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:21:18PM +0100, Robert Walker wrote:
Hi Leo,
On 22/05/18 10:52, Leo Yan wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 04:39:20PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
[...]
Rather than the patch I posted in my previous email, I think below new
Hi Rob,
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:21:18PM +0100, Robert Walker wrote:
> Hi Leo,
>
> On 22/05/18 10:52, Leo Yan wrote:
> >On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 04:39:20PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >Rather than the patch I posted in my previous email, I think below new
> >patch is more
Hi Rob,
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:21:18PM +0100, Robert Walker wrote:
> Hi Leo,
>
> On 22/05/18 10:52, Leo Yan wrote:
> >On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 04:39:20PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >Rather than the patch I posted in my previous email, I think below new
> >patch is more
Hi Leo,
On 22/05/18 10:52, Leo Yan wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 04:39:20PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
[...]
Rather than the patch I posted in my previous email, I think below new
patch is more reasonable for me.
In the below change, 'etmq->prev_packet' is only used to store the
previous
Hi Leo,
On 22/05/18 10:52, Leo Yan wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 04:39:20PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
[...]
Rather than the patch I posted in my previous email, I think below new
patch is more reasonable for me.
In the below change, 'etmq->prev_packet' is only used to store the
previous
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 04:39:20PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
[...]
Rather than the patch I posted in my previous email, I think below new
patch is more reasonable for me.
In the below change, 'etmq->prev_packet' is only used to store the
previous CS_ETM_RANGE packet, we don't need to save
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 04:39:20PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
[...]
Rather than the patch I posted in my previous email, I think below new
patch is more reasonable for me.
In the below change, 'etmq->prev_packet' is only used to store the
previous CS_ETM_RANGE packet, we don't need to save
Hi Rob,
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 12:27:42PM +0100, Robert Walker wrote:
> Hi Leo,
>
> On 21/05/18 09:52, Leo Yan wrote:
> >Commit e573e978fb12 ("perf cs-etm: Inject capabilitity for CoreSight
> >traces") reworks the samples generation flow from CoreSight trace to
> >match the correct format so
Hi Rob,
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 12:27:42PM +0100, Robert Walker wrote:
> Hi Leo,
>
> On 21/05/18 09:52, Leo Yan wrote:
> >Commit e573e978fb12 ("perf cs-etm: Inject capabilitity for CoreSight
> >traces") reworks the samples generation flow from CoreSight trace to
> >match the correct format so
Hi Leo,
On 21/05/18 09:52, Leo Yan wrote:
Commit e573e978fb12 ("perf cs-etm: Inject capabilitity for CoreSight
traces") reworks the samples generation flow from CoreSight trace to
match the correct format so Perf report tool can display the samples
properly. But the change has side effect for
Hi Leo,
On 21/05/18 09:52, Leo Yan wrote:
Commit e573e978fb12 ("perf cs-etm: Inject capabilitity for CoreSight
traces") reworks the samples generation flow from CoreSight trace to
match the correct format so Perf report tool can display the samples
properly. But the change has side effect for
Commit e573e978fb12 ("perf cs-etm: Inject capabilitity for CoreSight
traces") reworks the samples generation flow from CoreSight trace to
match the correct format so Perf report tool can display the samples
properly. But the change has side effect for packet handling, it only
generate samples
Commit e573e978fb12 ("perf cs-etm: Inject capabilitity for CoreSight
traces") reworks the samples generation flow from CoreSight trace to
match the correct format so Perf report tool can display the samples
properly. But the change has side effect for packet handling, it only
generate samples
20 matches
Mail list logo
