MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170616160630.GE4789@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
References: <1497534989-29231-1-git-send-email-eranian@google.com>
 <20170615151018.GA4789@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <CABPqkBTb3w3Cvz2hxpe2ZF_DLgsHrF+fMPTrT4OQwU=gatg7tA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170615172320.GB4789@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <CABPqkBTYjTTquE8S4rTqe+Ps7c3BzhX_W7ZJRaeXhYRK97esFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170615200205.GC4789@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <CABPqkBTKS3xJSB5daB8G8BmTOEgQeZ=du6+sZTkhiB3i4dTK7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABPqkBQCNqp_Lze6Va5RgFL_sQYEBVPmeLj5WcCOF99PeS=P4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170615231816.GD4789@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <CABPqkBQCbiW=b0kXXCUwh_e1FFTNLgHrA8en2Q1_Ov-W9-NBcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170616160630.GE4789@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 10:08:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CABPqkBQY+be3Ly5TS096gNi_fKhQWG=Ep-ue=BL6Sh3t7sjv8g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] perf: add support for capturing skid IP
To: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, "mingo@elte.hu" <mingo@elte.hu>,
        "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@intel.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1191
Lines: 26

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:52:07PM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> Andi,
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> >> Looking at this approach, the user interface is straightforward,
>> >> implementation in the x86 code is a bit more hairy because of the way
>> >> the branch_stack is captured, via the cpuc->lbr_entries. If you assume
>> >> that SKID_IP cannot be used with any other branch stack mode, then it
>> >> is easy. It becomes messy if you don't.
>> >
>> > That should be fine. After all if you have real LBRs you don't need
>> > the skid IP.
>> >
>> Yes, you still do. This is not the same thing. LBR captures only taken branches.
>> I care about taken AND non-taken branches and I don't want to sample on a
>> non-taken event, assuming it is available.
>
> Ok that's a reasonable argument for reporting it separately, like
> in your original patch.
>
Yeah, I think it is easier and more portable, especially on hardware with a
PEBS-like mechanism but no branch buffer (like LBR). FYI, I did do a test
implementation yesterday to evaluate the difficulty.

> -Andi