| Message ID | 1462461799-17518-1-git-send-email-naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, 2016-05-05 at 15:23:19 UTC, "Naveen N. Rao" wrote: > Generalize existing macros to serve the purpose. > > Cc: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com> > Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com> > Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> > Cc: Ian Munsie <imunsie@au1.ibm.com> > Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> > Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > --- > With this patch: > # ./perf test 37 > 37: Test BPF filter : > 37.1: Test basic BPF filtering : Ok > 37.2: Test BPF prologue generation : Ok > 37.3: Test BPF relocation checker : Ok > > tools/perf/arch/powerpc/Makefile | 1 + > tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/dwarf-regs.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++---------- > 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) Looks feasible, and is in powerpc only code, should I take this or acme? cheers
On 2016/05/07 02:15PM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Thu, 2016-05-05 at 15:23:19 UTC, "Naveen N. Rao" wrote: > > Generalize existing macros to serve the purpose. > > > > Cc: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com> > > Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com> > > Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> > > Cc: Ian Munsie <imunsie@au1.ibm.com> > > Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> > > Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > --- > > With this patch: > > # ./perf test 37 > > 37: Test BPF filter : > > 37.1: Test basic BPF filtering : Ok > > 37.2: Test BPF prologue generation : Ok > > 37.3: Test BPF relocation checker : Ok > > > > tools/perf/arch/powerpc/Makefile | 1 + > > tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/dwarf-regs.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++---------- > > 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > Looks feasible, and is in powerpc only code, should I take this or acme? Hi Michael, Arnaldo has already pulled this in: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2216051 It would be good if you can consider user stackdump as that depends on perf regs support which you have added to powerpc-next: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2210299/focus=2210749 Thanks, Naveen
On Sat, 2016-05-07 at 16:43 +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote: > On 2016/05/07 02:15PM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > On Thu, 2016-05-05 at 15:23:19 UTC, "Naveen N. Rao" wrote: > > > Generalize existing macros to serve the purpose. > > > > > > Cc: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com> > > > Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com> > > > Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> > > > Cc: Ian Munsie <imunsie@au1.ibm.com> > > > Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> > > > Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > --- > > > With this patch: > > > # ./perf test 37 > > > 37: Test BPF filter : > > > 37.1: Test basic BPF filtering : Ok > > > 37.2: Test BPF prologue generation : Ok > > > 37.3: Test BPF relocation checker : Ok > > > > > > tools/perf/arch/powerpc/Makefile | 1 + > > > tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/dwarf-regs.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++---------- > > > 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > > Looks feasible, and is in powerpc only code, should I take this or acme? > > Hi Michael, > Arnaldo has already pulled this in: > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2216051 Ah sorry. > It would be good if you can consider user stackdump as that depends on > perf regs support which you have added to powerpc-next: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2210299/focus=2210749 Yep I did, it's in next. https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/powerpc/linux.git/commit/?h=next&id=826dccfd238c3eeac379f5f637e5a3ddc7a4bc22 cheers
Em Sat, May 07, 2016 at 02:15:36PM +1000, Michael Ellerman escreveu: > On Thu, 2016-05-05 at 15:23:19 UTC, "Naveen N. Rao" wrote: > > Generalize existing macros to serve the purpose. > > > > Cc: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com> > > Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com> > > Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> > > Cc: Ian Munsie <imunsie@au1.ibm.com> > > Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> > > Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > --- > > With this patch: > > # ./perf test 37 > > 37: Test BPF filter : > > 37.1: Test basic BPF filtering : Ok > > 37.2: Test BPF prologue generation : Ok > > 37.3: Test BPF relocation checker : Ok > > > > tools/perf/arch/powerpc/Makefile | 1 + > > tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/dwarf-regs.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++---------- > > 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > Looks feasible, and is in powerpc only code, should I take this or acme? Its upstream already :-) - Arnaldo
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/Makefile index 56e05f1..cc39309 100644 --- a/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/Makefile +++ b/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/Makefile @@ -3,4 +3,5 @@ PERF_HAVE_DWARF_REGS := 1 endif HAVE_KVM_STAT_SUPPORT := 1 +PERF_HAVE_ARCH_REGS_QUERY_REGISTER_OFFSET := 1 PERF_HAVE_JITDUMP := 1 diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/dwarf-regs.c b/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/dwarf-regs.c index 733151c..41bdf95 100644 --- a/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/dwarf-regs.c +++ b/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/dwarf-regs.c @@ -10,19 +10,26 @@ */ #include <stddef.h> +#include <errno.h> +#include <string.h> #include <dwarf-regs.h> - +#include <linux/ptrace.h> +#include <linux/kernel.h> +#include "util.h" struct pt_regs_dwarfnum { const char *name; unsigned int dwarfnum; + unsigned int ptregs_offset; }; -#define STR(s) #s -#define REG_DWARFNUM_NAME(r, num) {.name = r, .dwarfnum = num} -#define GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(num) \ - {.name = STR(%gpr##num), .dwarfnum = num} -#define REG_DWARFNUM_END {.name = NULL, .dwarfnum = 0} +#define REG_DWARFNUM_NAME(r, num) \ + {.name = STR(%)STR(r), .dwarfnum = num, \ + .ptregs_offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, r)} +#define GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(num) \ + {.name = STR(%gpr##num), .dwarfnum = num, \ + .ptregs_offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, gpr[num])} +#define REG_DWARFNUM_END {.name = NULL, .dwarfnum = 0, .ptregs_offset = 0} /* * Reference: @@ -61,12 +68,12 @@ static const struct pt_regs_dwarfnum regdwarfnum_table[] = { GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(29), GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(30), GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(31), - REG_DWARFNUM_NAME("%msr", 66), - REG_DWARFNUM_NAME("%ctr", 109), - REG_DWARFNUM_NAME("%link", 108), - REG_DWARFNUM_NAME("%xer", 101), - REG_DWARFNUM_NAME("%dar", 119), - REG_DWARFNUM_NAME("%dsisr", 118), + REG_DWARFNUM_NAME(msr, 66), + REG_DWARFNUM_NAME(ctr, 109), + REG_DWARFNUM_NAME(link, 108), + REG_DWARFNUM_NAME(xer, 101), + REG_DWARFNUM_NAME(dar, 119), + REG_DWARFNUM_NAME(dsisr, 118), REG_DWARFNUM_END, }; @@ -86,3 +93,12 @@ const char *get_arch_regstr(unsigned int n) return roff->name; return NULL; } + +int regs_query_register_offset(const char *name) +{ + const struct pt_regs_dwarfnum *roff; + for (roff = regdwarfnum_table; roff->name != NULL; roff++) + if (!strcmp(roff->name, name)) + return roff->ptregs_offset; + return -EINVAL; +}
Generalize existing macros to serve the purpose. Cc: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com> Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> Cc: Ian Munsie <imunsie@au1.ibm.com> Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> --- With this patch: # ./perf test 37 37: Test BPF filter : 37.1: Test basic BPF filtering : Ok 37.2: Test BPF prologue generation : Ok 37.3: Test BPF relocation checker : Ok tools/perf/arch/powerpc/Makefile | 1 + tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/dwarf-regs.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++---------- 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)