Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758650AbZFMKJ2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Jun 2009 06:09:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754035AbZFMKJV (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Jun 2009 06:09:21 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:60627 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753967AbZFMKJU (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Jun 2009 06:09:20 -0400 Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:09:16 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Paul Mackerras Cc: Corey Ashford , LKML , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: perf_counters: page fault trace record Message-ID: <20090613100916.GA9959@elte.hu> References: <4A330022.3070105@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <18995.8319.322002.917595@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <4A336700.3060309@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <18995.28357.164575.925080@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18995.28357.164575.925080@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1393 Lines: 38 * Paul Mackerras wrote: > Corey Ashford writes: > > > Paul Mackerras wrote: > > > Can't you do what you need just using a page fault software > > > counter with sample_type = PERF_SAMPLE_IP | PERF_SAMPLE_ADDR > > > and sample_period = 1? > > > > I thought about that, but I was under the (incorrect?) > > impression that on Power, the PERF_SAMPLE_ADDR would be set by > > the value of the SDAR register, which wouldn't be correct for > > the case of a page fault. > > No, the PERF_SAMPLE_ADDR value only comes from SDAR for a hardware > counter overflow event. For the page-fault software counter the > PERF_SAMPLE_ADDR value will always be the faulting address. Corey, could you please add support for it in 'perf'? We dont want such sw-counter features to be in the kernel code without matching support in tools/perf/. While user data symbols wont be resolved, if we have a --target-address switch in perf record we could see the faulting frequency (and the fault coverage - and ordering as well) of shared libraries, in perf report and perf annotate. This would be a very useful facility. Thanks, Ingo -- 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/