On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 06:49:36AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 9/30/20 10:30 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > In general though; I think using ->active_mm is a mistake though. That
> > code should be doing something like:
> >
> >
> > mm = current->mm;
> > if (!mm)
> > mm =
On 9/30/20 10:30 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> In general though; I think using ->active_mm is a mistake though. That
> code should be doing something like:
>
>
> mm = current->mm;
> if (!mm)
> mm = _mm;
>
I was hoping that using ->active_mm would give us the *actual*
On 9/30/2020 6:45 PM, Stephane Eranian wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:30 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 07:48:48AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 9/30/20 7:42 AM, Liang, Kan wrote:
When I tested on my kernel, it panicked because I suspect
current->active_mm could be
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:30 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 07:48:48AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 9/30/20 7:42 AM, Liang, Kan wrote:
> > >> When I tested on my kernel, it panicked because I suspect
> > >> current->active_mm could be NULL. Adding a check for NULL
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 07:48:48AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 9/30/20 7:42 AM, Liang, Kan wrote:
> >> When I tested on my kernel, it panicked because I suspect
> >> current->active_mm could be NULL. Adding a check for NULL avoided the
> >> problem. But I suspect this is not the correct
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 7:48 AM Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> On 9/30/20 7:42 AM, Liang, Kan wrote:
> >> When I tested on my kernel, it panicked because I suspect
> >> current->active_mm could be NULL. Adding a check for NULL avoided the
> >> problem. But I suspect this is not the correct solution.
> >
On 9/30/20 7:42 AM, Liang, Kan wrote:
>> When I tested on my kernel, it panicked because I suspect
>> current->active_mm could be NULL. Adding a check for NULL avoided the
>> problem. But I suspect this is not the correct solution.
>
> I guess the NULL active_mm should be a rare case. If so, I
On 9/30/2020 3:15 AM, Stephane Eranian wrote:
+static u64 perf_get_page_size(unsigned long addr)
+{
+ unsigned long flags;
+ u64 size;
+
+ if (!addr)
+ return 0;
+
+ /*
+* Software page-table walkers must disable IRQs,
+* which prevents
On 9/30/20 12:15 AM, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> + /*
>> +* Software page-table walkers must disable IRQs,
>> +* which prevents any tear down of the page tables.
>> +*/
>> + local_irq_save(flags);
>> +
>> + size = __perf_get_page_size(current->active_mm,
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 8:29 AM wrote:
>
> From: Kan Liang
>
> Current perf can report both virtual addresses and physical addresses,
> but not the MMU page size. Without the MMU page size information of the
> utilized page, users cannot decide whether to promote/demote large pages
> to optimize
10 matches
Mail list logo
