Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755076AbaKSHFr (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Nov 2014 02:05:47 -0500 Received: from LGEMRELSE7Q.lge.com ([156.147.1.151]:54879 "EHLO lgemrelse7q.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754649AbaKSHFq (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Nov 2014 02:05:46 -0500 X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.235 X-Original-MAILFROM: namhyung@gmail.com From: Namhyung Kim To: kan.liang@intel.com Cc: acme@kernel.org, jolsa@redhat.com, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, eranian@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, paulus@samba.org, ak@linux.intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/3] perf tools: enable LBR call stack support References: <1416346617-3577-1-git-send-email-kan.liang@intel.com> <1416346617-3577-2-git-send-email-kan.liang@intel.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 16:05:43 +0900 In-Reply-To: <1416346617-3577-2-git-send-email-kan.liang@intel.com> (kan liang's message of "Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:36:55 -0500") Message-ID: <87r3wzpt4o.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:36:55 -0500, kan liang wrote: > From: Kan Liang > > Currently, there are two call chain recording options, fp and dwarf. > Haswell has a new feature that utilizes the existing LBR facility to > record call chains. So it provides the third options to record call > chain. This patch enables the lbr call stack support. > > LBR call stack has some limitations. It reuses current LBR facility, so > LBR call stack and branch record can not be enabled at the same time. It > is only available for user callchain. > However, LBR call stack can work on the user app which doesn't have > frame-pointer or dwarf debug info compiled. It is a good alternative > when nothing else works. [SNIP] > static void > -perf_evsel__config_callgraph(struct perf_evsel *evsel) > +perf_evsel__config_callgraph(struct perf_evsel *evsel, > + struct record_opts *opts) > { > bool function = perf_evsel__is_function_event(evsel); > struct perf_event_attr *attr = &evsel->attr; > > perf_evsel__set_sample_bit(evsel, CALLCHAIN); > > + if (callchain_param.record_mode == CALLCHAIN_LBR) { > + if (!opts->branch_stack) { > + perf_evsel__set_sample_bit(evsel, BRANCH_STACK); > + attr->branch_sample_type = PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_USER | > + PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_CALL_STACK; > + if (attr->exclude_user) { > + attr->exclude_user = 0; > + > + pr_warning("LBR callstack option is only available" > + " to get user callchain information." > + " Force exclude_user to 0.\n"); > + } I'm not sure what's in a higher priority - maybe I missed earlier discussion. IOW what about this? if (attr->exclude_user) { pr_warning("LBR callstack option is only available" " to get user callchain information.\n"); } else { perf_evsel__set_sample_bit(evsel, BRANCH_STACK); attr->branch_sample_type = PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_USER | PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_CALL_STACK; } > + } else > + pr_info("Cannot use LBR callstack with branch stack\n"); It seems pr_warning is more appropriate here. Thanks, Namhyung > + } > + > if (callchain_param.record_mode == CALLCHAIN_DWARF) { > if (!function) { > perf_evsel__set_sample_bit(evsel, REGS_USER); > @@ -659,7 +676,7 @@ void perf_evsel__config(struct perf_evsel *evsel, struct record_opts *opts) > } > > if (callchain_param.enabled && !evsel->no_aux_samples) > - perf_evsel__config_callgraph(evsel); > + perf_evsel__config_callgraph(evsel, opts); > > if (target__has_cpu(&opts->target)) > perf_evsel__set_sample_bit(evsel, CPU); -- 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/