Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753806Ab3GXTXK (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:23:10 -0400 Received: from co1ehsobe005.messaging.microsoft.com ([216.32.180.188]:7913 "EHLO co1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751579Ab3GXTXI convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:23:08 -0400 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:70.37.183.190;KIP:(null);UIP:(null);IPV:NLI;H:mail.freescale.net;RD:none;EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -4 X-BigFish: VS-4(zzbb2dI98dI9371I1432Izz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzzz2dh2a8h668h839h944hd2bhf0ah1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah139eh13b6h1441h1504h1537h162dh1631h16a6h1758h1898h18e1h1946h19b5h1ad9h1b0ah1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dc1h1dfeh1dffh1e23h1155h) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:22:53 -0500 From: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH] module: ppc64 module CRC relocation fix causes perf issues To: Michael Ellerman CC: Anton Blanchard , Neil Horman , Rusty Russell , , Paul Mackerras , In-Reply-To: <20130723133032.GB31944@concordia> (from michael@ellerman.id.au on Tue Jul 23 08:30:32 2013) X-Mailer: Balsa 2.4.12 Message-ID: <1374693773.15592.59@snotra> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; delsp=Yes; format=Flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-OriginatorOrg: freescale.com X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1825 Lines: 49 On 07/23/2013 08:30:32 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 05:59:30PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > > On 07/17/2013 11:00:45 PM, Anton Blanchard wrote: > > > > > >Hi Scott, > > > > > >> What specifically should I do to test it? > > > > > >Could you double check perf annotate works? I'm 99% sure it will > but > > >that is what was failing on ppc64. > > > > I'm not really sure what it's supposed to look like when "perf > > annotate" works. It spits a bunch of unreadable[1] > > dark-blue-on-black assembly code at me, all with "0.00 :" in the > > left column. > > > > Oh, wait -- some lines have "100.00 : " on the left, in > > even-more-unreadable dark-red-on-black. > > > > Apart from the annoying colors, is there anything specific I should > > be looking for? Some sort of error message, or output that actually > > makes sense? > > The colours look fine on my terminal, so I don't know what you've done > there. It probably looks better if the terminal is configured to have a light background (which of course makes some other programs look worse), or (as I noted) if you've got your monitor set to be very bright. I now see that xfce4-terminal lets me redefine the standard colors, though, so that should help. > If you care you can use "--stdio" to use the plainer interface, > though it still uses colours. > > That output looks fine in terms of the bug Anton was chasing. As far > as > only ever hitting one instruction that does look weird. OK. I'll add "investigate weird e500 perf annotate results" to the TODO list... -Scott -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/