lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/2] perf util: Check for fused instruction
From
Date

>> +
>> +static bool x86__ins_is_fused(char *cpuid, const char *ins1, const char *ins2)
>> +{
>> + unsigned int family, model, stepping;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * cpuid = "GenuineIntel,family,model,stepping"
>> + */
>> + ret = sscanf(cpuid, "%*[^,],%u,%u,%u", &family, &model, &stepping);
> So, looking at the next patch, that uses this, I see that you'll call
> this everytime that jump arrow will be printed, why not do this when
> doing the initial disassembly, and having this info cached in the struct
> ins or disasm_line (haven't looked closely to provide exact instructions
> on how to do it)?

Yes, you're right. It doesn't need to do this model checking each time.

I will move the model checking to other place and record the model in
annotate_browser.

> Even more, you could do this model checking just once per disassembly,
> then use it as you go reading the disassembly lines, marking them as
> fused/not fused and then at jump arror printing just look at a flag, no?
>
> - Arnaldo
>

For this, I have another consideration.

The fused instruction pair consists of 2 instructions. One is jump, the
other is "CMP/TEST/...".

If I check the fused instruction pair once per disassembly, I need to
check if one instruction is jump and the other is "CMP/TEST/..." for all
instructions.

While in annotate_browser__draw_current_jump(), it has already checked
if a disasm_line is a valid jump, so the jump checking will be duplicated.

The current implementation is just performing the fused checking when
user moves the cursor on the jump instruction. It doesn't need to add
additional jump checking.

So the current way may be acceptable as well?

Thanks
Jin Yao

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-07 03:10    [W:0.046 / U:38.176 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site