lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 1/7] perf/core: Define the common branch type classification
From
Date
Hi,

Following branch types should be common enough, right?

+ PERF_BR_COND = 1, /* conditional */
+ PERF_BR_UNCOND = 2, /* unconditional */
+ PERF_BR_IND = 3, /* indirect */
+ PERF_BR_CALL = 4, /* call */
+ PERF_BR_IND_CALL = 5, /* indirect call */
+ PERF_BR_RET = 6, /* return */

I decide to only define these types in this patch set. For other more
arch-related branch type, we can add it in future.

Is this OK?

Thanks
Jin Yao

On 7/10/2017 9:10 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 07:46:17PM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote:
>> 1. We all agree these definitions:
>>
>> + PERF_BR_COND = 1, /* conditional */
>> + PERF_BR_UNCOND = 2, /* unconditional */
>> + PERF_BR_IND = 3, /* indirect */
>> + PERF_BR_CALL = 4, /* call */
>> + PERF_BR_IND_CALL = 5, /* indirect call */
>> + PERF_BR_RET = 6, /* return */
>> + PERF_BR_SYSCALL = 7, /* syscall */
>> + PERF_BR_SYSRET = 8, /* syscall return */
>> + PERF_BR_IRET = 11, /* return from interrupt */
> Do we? It does not map very well to PowerPC branch types.
>
>> 2. I wish to keep following definitions for x86.
>>
>> + PERF_BR_IRQ = 9, /* hw interrupt/trap/fault */
>> + PERF_BR_INT = 10, /* sw interrupt */
>>
>> PERF_BR_INT is triggered by instruction "int" .
>> PERF_BR_IRQ is triggered by interrupts, traps, faults (the ring 0,3
>> transition).
> So your "PERF_BR_INT" is a system call? And PERF_BR_IRQ is not an
> interrupt request (as its name suggests), not what we call an "external
> interrupt" either; instead it is every interrupt that is not a system
> call?
>
> It also does not follow the lines of "software caused interrupt" vs.
> the rest.
>
>> 4. I'd like to add following types for powerpc.
>>
>> PERF_BR_COND_CALL /* Conditional call */
>> PERF_BR_COND_RET /* Condition return */
> Almost all PowerPC branches have a "conditional" version (only "syscall"
> and "sysret/iret" do not -- and those last two are the same, just like
> PERF_BR_INT seems to be the same as PERF_BR_SYSCALL).
>
> So how should those PERF_BR_* be used? It cannot be used in an
> architecture-neutral interface the way you define it now.
>
>
> Segher

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-10 15:28    [W:0.168 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site