| Message ID | 8578.1368699317@ale.ozlabs.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 08:15:17PM +1000, Michael Neuling wrote: > Peter, > > BTW PowerPC also has the ability to filter on conditional branches. Any > chance we could add something like the follow to perf also? > I don't see an immediate problem with that except that we on x86 need to implement that in the software filter. Stephane do you see any fundamental issue with that? > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h > index fb104e5..891c769 100644 > --- a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h > @@ -157,8 +157,9 @@ enum perf_branch_sample_type { > PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_CALL = 1U << 4, /* any call branch */ > PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_RETURN = 1U << 5, /* any return branch */ > PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_IND_CALL = 1U << 6, /* indirect calls */ > + PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_CONDITIONAL = 1U << 7, /* conditional branches */ > > - PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_MAX = 1U << 7, /* non-ABI */ > + PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_MAX = 1U << 8, /* non-ABI */ > }; > > #define PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_PLM_ALL \ > diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c > index cdf58ec..5b0b89d 100644 > --- a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c > +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c > @@ -676,6 +676,7 @@ static const struct branch_mode branch_modes[] = { > BRANCH_OPT("any_call", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_CALL), > BRANCH_OPT("any_ret", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_RETURN), > BRANCH_OPT("ind_call", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_IND_CALL), > + BRANCH_OPT("cnd", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_CONDITIONAL), > BRANCH_END > }; >
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 08:15:17PM +1000, Michael Neuling wrote: >> Peter, >> >> BTW PowerPC also has the ability to filter on conditional branches. Any >> chance we could add something like the follow to perf also? >> > > I don't see an immediate problem with that except that we on x86 need to > implement that in the software filter. Stephane do you see any > fundamental issue with that? > On X86, the LBR cannot filter on conditional in HW. Thus as Peter said, it would have to be done in SW. I did not add that because I think those branches are not necessarily useful for tools. >> >> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h >> index fb104e5..891c769 100644 >> --- a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h >> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h >> @@ -157,8 +157,9 @@ enum perf_branch_sample_type { >> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_CALL = 1U << 4, /* any call branch */ >> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_RETURN = 1U << 5, /* any return branch */ >> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_IND_CALL = 1U << 6, /* indirect calls */ >> + PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_CONDITIONAL = 1U << 7, /* conditional branches */ >> >> - PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_MAX = 1U << 7, /* non-ABI */ >> + PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_MAX = 1U << 8, /* non-ABI */ >> }; >> >> #define PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_PLM_ALL \ >> diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c >> index cdf58ec..5b0b89d 100644 >> --- a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c >> +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c >> @@ -676,6 +676,7 @@ static const struct branch_mode branch_modes[] = { >> BRANCH_OPT("any_call", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_CALL), >> BRANCH_OPT("any_ret", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_RETURN), >> BRANCH_OPT("ind_call", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_IND_CALL), >> + BRANCH_OPT("cnd", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_CONDITIONAL), >> BRANCH_END >> }; >>
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org> wrote: > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 03:37:22PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote: >> > On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote: >> > > We should always have proper privileges when requesting kernel data. >> > > >> > > Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> >> > > Cc: eranian@google.com >> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> >> > > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/n/tip-v0x9ky3ahzr6nm3c6ilwrili@git.kernel.org >> > > --- >> > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_lbr.c | 5 ++++- >> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > > >> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_lbr.c >> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_lbr.c >> > > @@ -318,8 +318,11 @@ static void intel_pmu_setup_sw_lbr_filte >> > > if (br_type & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_USER) >> > > mask |= X86_BR_USER; >> > > >> > > - if (br_type & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_KERNEL) >> > > + if (br_type & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_KERNEL) { >> > > + if (perf_paranoid_kernel() && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) >> > > + return -EACCES; >> > > mask |= X86_BR_KERNEL; >> > > + } >> > > >> > This will prevent regular users from capturing kernel -> kernel branches. >> > But it won't prevent users from getting kernel -> user branches. Thus >> > some kernel address will still be captured. I guess they could be eliminated >> > by the sw_filter. >> > >> > When using LBR priv level filtering, the filter applies to the branch target >> > only. >> >> How about something like the below? It also adds the branch flags >> Mikey wanted for PowerPC. > > Peter, > > BTW PowerPC also has the ability to filter on conditional branches. Any > chance we could add something like the follow to perf also? > > Mikey > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h > index fb104e5..891c769 100644 > --- a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h > @@ -157,8 +157,9 @@ enum perf_branch_sample_type { > PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_CALL = 1U << 4, /* any call branch */ > PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_RETURN = 1U << 5, /* any return branch */ > PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_IND_CALL = 1U << 6, /* indirect calls */ > + PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_CONDITIONAL = 1U << 7, /* conditional branches */ > I would use PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_COND here. > - PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_MAX = 1U << 7, /* non-ABI */ > + PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_MAX = 1U << 8, /* non-ABI */ > }; > > #define PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_PLM_ALL \ > diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c > index cdf58ec..5b0b89d 100644 > --- a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c > +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c > @@ -676,6 +676,7 @@ static const struct branch_mode branch_modes[] = { > BRANCH_OPT("any_call", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_CALL), > BRANCH_OPT("any_ret", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_RETURN), > BRANCH_OPT("ind_call", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_IND_CALL), > + BRANCH_OPT("cnd", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_CONDITIONAL), use "cond" > BRANCH_END > }; > And if you do this, you also need to update the x86 perf_event_intel_lbr.c mapping tables to fill out the entries for PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_COND: [PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_COND] = LBR_JCC, And you also need to update intel_pmu_setup_sw_lbr_filter() to handle the conversion to x86 instructions: if (br_type & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_COND) mask |= X86_BR_JCC; You also need to update the perf-record.txt documentation to list cond as a possible branch filter.
On 05/21/2013 07:25 PM, Stephane Eranian wrote: > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org> wrote: >> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 03:37:22PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote: >>>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote: >>>>> We should always have proper privileges when requesting kernel data. >>>>> >>>>> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> >>>>> Cc: eranian@google.com >>>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> >>>>> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/n/tip-v0x9ky3ahzr6nm3c6ilwrili@git.kernel.org >>>>> --- >>>>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_lbr.c | 5 ++++- >>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>> >>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_lbr.c >>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_lbr.c >>>>> @@ -318,8 +318,11 @@ static void intel_pmu_setup_sw_lbr_filte >>>>> if (br_type & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_USER) >>>>> mask |= X86_BR_USER; >>>>> >>>>> - if (br_type & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_KERNEL) >>>>> + if (br_type & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_KERNEL) { >>>>> + if (perf_paranoid_kernel() && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) >>>>> + return -EACCES; >>>>> mask |= X86_BR_KERNEL; >>>>> + } >>>>> >>>> This will prevent regular users from capturing kernel -> kernel branches. >>>> But it won't prevent users from getting kernel -> user branches. Thus >>>> some kernel address will still be captured. I guess they could be eliminated >>>> by the sw_filter. >>>> >>>> When using LBR priv level filtering, the filter applies to the branch target >>>> only. >>> >>> How about something like the below? It also adds the branch flags >>> Mikey wanted for PowerPC. >> >> Peter, >> >> BTW PowerPC also has the ability to filter on conditional branches. Any >> chance we could add something like the follow to perf also? >> >> Mikey >> >> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h >> index fb104e5..891c769 100644 >> --- a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h >> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h >> @@ -157,8 +157,9 @@ enum perf_branch_sample_type { >> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_CALL = 1U << 4, /* any call branch */ >> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_RETURN = 1U << 5, /* any return branch */ >> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_IND_CALL = 1U << 6, /* indirect calls */ >> + PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_CONDITIONAL = 1U << 7, /* conditional branches */ >> > I would use PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_COND here. > >> - PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_MAX = 1U << 7, /* non-ABI */ >> + PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_MAX = 1U << 8, /* non-ABI */ >> }; >> >> #define PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_PLM_ALL \ >> diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c >> index cdf58ec..5b0b89d 100644 >> --- a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c >> +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c >> @@ -676,6 +676,7 @@ static const struct branch_mode branch_modes[] = { >> BRANCH_OPT("any_call", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_CALL), >> BRANCH_OPT("any_ret", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_RETURN), >> BRANCH_OPT("ind_call", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_IND_CALL), >> + BRANCH_OPT("cnd", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_CONDITIONAL), > > use "cond" > >> BRANCH_END >> }; >> > > And if you do this, you also need to update the x86 > perf_event_intel_lbr.c mapping > tables to fill out the entries for PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_COND: > > [PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_COND] = LBR_JCC, > > And you also need to update intel_pmu_setup_sw_lbr_filter() > to handle the conversion to x86 instructions: > > if (br_type & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_COND) > mask |= X86_BR_JCC; > > > You also need to update the perf-record.txt documentation to list cond > as a possible > branch filter. Hey Stephane, I have incorporated all the review comments into the patch series https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/22/51. Regards Anshuman
Hi, On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Anshuman Khandual <khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On 05/21/2013 07:25 PM, Stephane Eranian wrote: >> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org> wrote: >>> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 03:37:22PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote: >>>>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote: >>>>>> We should always have proper privileges when requesting kernel data. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> >>>>>> Cc: eranian@google.com >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> >>>>>> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/n/tip-v0x9ky3ahzr6nm3c6ilwrili@git.kernel.org >>>>>> --- >>>>>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_lbr.c | 5 ++++- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_lbr.c >>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_lbr.c >>>>>> @@ -318,8 +318,11 @@ static void intel_pmu_setup_sw_lbr_filte >>>>>> if (br_type & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_USER) >>>>>> mask |= X86_BR_USER; >>>>>> >>>>>> - if (br_type & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_KERNEL) >>>>>> + if (br_type & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_KERNEL) { >>>>>> + if (perf_paranoid_kernel() && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) >>>>>> + return -EACCES; >>>>>> mask |= X86_BR_KERNEL; >>>>>> + } >>>>>> >>>>> This will prevent regular users from capturing kernel -> kernel branches. >>>>> But it won't prevent users from getting kernel -> user branches. Thus >>>>> some kernel address will still be captured. I guess they could be eliminated >>>>> by the sw_filter. >>>>> >>>>> When using LBR priv level filtering, the filter applies to the branch target >>>>> only. >>>> >>>> How about something like the below? It also adds the branch flags >>>> Mikey wanted for PowerPC. >>> >>> Peter, >>> >>> BTW PowerPC also has the ability to filter on conditional branches. Any >>> chance we could add something like the follow to perf also? >>> >>> Mikey >>> >>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h >>> index fb104e5..891c769 100644 >>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h >>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h >>> @@ -157,8 +157,9 @@ enum perf_branch_sample_type { >>> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_CALL = 1U << 4, /* any call branch */ >>> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_RETURN = 1U << 5, /* any return branch */ >>> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_IND_CALL = 1U << 6, /* indirect calls */ >>> + PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_CONDITIONAL = 1U << 7, /* conditional branches */ >>> >> I would use PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_COND here. >> >>> - PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_MAX = 1U << 7, /* non-ABI */ >>> + PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_MAX = 1U << 8, /* non-ABI */ >>> }; >>> >>> #define PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_PLM_ALL \ >>> diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c >>> index cdf58ec..5b0b89d 100644 >>> --- a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c >>> +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c >>> @@ -676,6 +676,7 @@ static const struct branch_mode branch_modes[] = { >>> BRANCH_OPT("any_call", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_CALL), >>> BRANCH_OPT("any_ret", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_RETURN), >>> BRANCH_OPT("ind_call", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_IND_CALL), >>> + BRANCH_OPT("cnd", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_CONDITIONAL), >> >> use "cond" >> >>> BRANCH_END >>> }; >>> >> >> And if you do this, you also need to update the x86 >> perf_event_intel_lbr.c mapping >> tables to fill out the entries for PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_COND: >> >> [PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_COND] = LBR_JCC, >> >> And you also need to update intel_pmu_setup_sw_lbr_filter() >> to handle the conversion to x86 instructions: >> >> if (br_type & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_COND) >> mask |= X86_BR_JCC; >> >> >> You also need to update the perf-record.txt documentation to list cond >> as a possible >> branch filter. > > Hey Stephane, > > I have incorporated all the review comments into the patch series > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/22/51. > I don't see how you can compile Patch 3/5: + BRANCH_OPT("cond", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_CONDITIONAL), Needs to be PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_COND.
On 05/22/2013 05:53 PM, Stephane Eranian wrote: > Hi, > > > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Anshuman Khandual > <khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> On 05/21/2013 07:25 PM, Stephane Eranian wrote: >>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org> wrote: >>>> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 03:37:22PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote: >>>>>>> We should always have proper privileges when requesting kernel data. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> >>>>>>> Cc: eranian@google.com >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> >>>>>>> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/n/tip-v0x9ky3ahzr6nm3c6ilwrili@git.kernel.org >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_lbr.c | 5 ++++- >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_lbr.c >>>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_lbr.c >>>>>>> @@ -318,8 +318,11 @@ static void intel_pmu_setup_sw_lbr_filte >>>>>>> if (br_type & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_USER) >>>>>>> mask |= X86_BR_USER; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - if (br_type & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_KERNEL) >>>>>>> + if (br_type & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_KERNEL) { >>>>>>> + if (perf_paranoid_kernel() && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) >>>>>>> + return -EACCES; >>>>>>> mask |= X86_BR_KERNEL; >>>>>>> + } >>>>>>> >>>>>> This will prevent regular users from capturing kernel -> kernel branches. >>>>>> But it won't prevent users from getting kernel -> user branches. Thus >>>>>> some kernel address will still be captured. I guess they could be eliminated >>>>>> by the sw_filter. >>>>>> >>>>>> When using LBR priv level filtering, the filter applies to the branch target >>>>>> only. >>>>> >>>>> How about something like the below? It also adds the branch flags >>>>> Mikey wanted for PowerPC. >>>> >>>> Peter, >>>> >>>> BTW PowerPC also has the ability to filter on conditional branches. Any >>>> chance we could add something like the follow to perf also? >>>> >>>> Mikey >>>> >>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h >>>> index fb104e5..891c769 100644 >>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h >>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h >>>> @@ -157,8 +157,9 @@ enum perf_branch_sample_type { >>>> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_CALL = 1U << 4, /* any call branch */ >>>> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_RETURN = 1U << 5, /* any return branch */ >>>> PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_IND_CALL = 1U << 6, /* indirect calls */ >>>> + PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_CONDITIONAL = 1U << 7, /* conditional branches */ >>>> >>> I would use PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_COND here. >>> >>>> - PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_MAX = 1U << 7, /* non-ABI */ >>>> + PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_MAX = 1U << 8, /* non-ABI */ >>>> }; >>>> >>>> #define PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_PLM_ALL \ >>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c >>>> index cdf58ec..5b0b89d 100644 >>>> --- a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c >>>> +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c >>>> @@ -676,6 +676,7 @@ static const struct branch_mode branch_modes[] = { >>>> BRANCH_OPT("any_call", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_CALL), >>>> BRANCH_OPT("any_ret", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_RETURN), >>>> BRANCH_OPT("ind_call", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_IND_CALL), >>>> + BRANCH_OPT("cnd", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_CONDITIONAL), >>> >>> use "cond" >>> >>>> BRANCH_END >>>> }; >>>> >>> >>> And if you do this, you also need to update the x86 >>> perf_event_intel_lbr.c mapping >>> tables to fill out the entries for PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_COND: >>> >>> [PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_COND] = LBR_JCC, >>> >>> And you also need to update intel_pmu_setup_sw_lbr_filter() >>> to handle the conversion to x86 instructions: >>> >>> if (br_type & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_COND) >>> mask |= X86_BR_JCC; >>> >>> >>> You also need to update the perf-record.txt documentation to list cond >>> as a possible >>> branch filter. >> >> Hey Stephane, >> >> I have incorporated all the review comments into the patch series >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/22/51. >> > I don't see how you can compile Patch 3/5: > > + BRANCH_OPT("cond", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_CONDITIONAL), > > Needs to be PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_COND. > Ahh, sorry missed it, will fix it.
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h index fb104e5..891c769 100644 --- a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h +++ b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h @@ -157,8 +157,9 @@ enum perf_branch_sample_type { PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_CALL = 1U << 4, /* any call branch */ PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_RETURN = 1U << 5, /* any return branch */ PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_IND_CALL = 1U << 6, /* indirect calls */ + PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_CONDITIONAL = 1U << 7, /* conditional branches */ - PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_MAX = 1U << 7, /* non-ABI */ + PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_MAX = 1U << 8, /* non-ABI */ }; #define PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_PLM_ALL \ diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c index cdf58ec..5b0b89d 100644 --- a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c @@ -676,6 +676,7 @@ static const struct branch_mode branch_modes[] = { BRANCH_OPT("any_call", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_CALL), BRANCH_OPT("any_ret", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_RETURN), BRANCH_OPT("ind_call", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_IND_CALL), + BRANCH_OPT("cnd", PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_CONDITIONAL), BRANCH_END };