Subject: Re: [v3 12/15] powerpc/perf: Add support for outputting extended regs in perf intr_regs

From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:56:09 -0300

Em Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 11:14:16AM +0530, kajoljain escreveu:
> 
> 
> On 7/21/20 11:32 AM, kajoljain wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 7/17/20 8:08 PM, Athira Rajeev wrote:
> >> From: Anju T Sudhakar <[email-masked]>
> >>
> >> Add support for perf extended register capability in powerpc.
> >> The capability flag PERF_PMU_CAP_EXTENDED_REGS, is used to indicate the
> >> PMU which support extended registers. The generic code define the mask
> >> of extended registers as 0 for non supported architectures.
> >>
> >> Patch adds extended regs support for power9 platform by
> >> exposing MMCR0, MMCR1 and MMCR2 registers.
> >>
> >> REG_RESERVED mask needs update to include extended regs.
> >> `PERF_REG_EXTENDED_MASK`, contains mask value of the supported registers,
> >> is defined at runtime in the kernel based on platform since the supported
> >> registers may differ from one processor version to another and hence the
> >> MASK value.
> >>
> >> with patch
> >> ----------
> >>
> >> available registers: r0 r1 r2 r3 r4 r5 r6 r7 r8 r9 r10 r11
> >> r12 r13 r14 r15 r16 r17 r18 r19 r20 r21 r22 r23 r24 r25 r26
> >> r27 r28 r29 r30 r31 nip msr orig_r3 ctr link xer ccr softe
> >> trap dar dsisr sier mmcra mmcr0 mmcr1 mmcr2
> >>
> >> PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE(IP, 0x1): 4784/4784: 0 period: 1 addr: 0
> >> ... intr regs: mask 0xffffffffffff ABI 64-bit
> >> .... r0    0xc00000000012b77c
> >> .... r1    0xc000003fe5e03930
> >> .... r2    0xc000000001b0e000
> >> .... r3    0xc000003fdcddf800
> >> .... r4    0xc000003fc7880000
> >> .... r5    0x9c422724be
> >> .... r6    0xc000003fe5e03908
> >> .... r7    0xffffff63bddc8706
> >> .... r8    0x9e4
> >> .... r9    0x0
> >> .... r10   0x1
> >> .... r11   0x0
> >> .... r12   0xc0000000001299c0
> >> .... r13   0xc000003ffffc4800
> >> .... r14   0x0
> >> .... r15   0x7fffdd8b8b00
> >> .... r16   0x0
> >> .... r17   0x7fffdd8be6b8
> >> .... r18   0x7e7076607730
> >> .... r19   0x2f
> >> .... r20   0xc00000001fc26c68
> >> .... r21   0xc0002041e4227e00
> >> .... r22   0xc00000002018fb60
> >> .... r23   0x1
> >> .... r24   0xc000003ffec4d900
> >> .... r25   0x80000000
> >> .... r26   0x0
> >> .... r27   0x1
> >> .... r28   0x1
> >> .... r29   0xc000000001be1260
> >> .... r30   0x6008010
> >> .... r31   0xc000003ffebb7218
> >> .... nip   0xc00000000012b910
> >> .... msr   0x9000000000009033
> >> .... orig_r3 0xc00000000012b86c
> >> .... ctr   0xc0000000001299c0
> >> .... link  0xc00000000012b77c
> >> .... xer   0x0
> >> .... ccr   0x28002222
> >> .... softe 0x1
> >> .... trap  0xf00
> >> .... dar   0x0
> >> .... dsisr 0x80000000000
> >> .... sier  0x0
> >> .... mmcra 0x80000000000
> >> .... mmcr0 0x82008090
> >> .... mmcr1 0x1e000000
> >> .... mmcr2 0x0
> >>  ... thread: perf:4784
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Anju T Sudhakar <[email-masked]>
> >> [Defined PERF_REG_EXTENDED_MASK at run time to add support for different platforms ]
> >> Signed-off-by: Athira Rajeev <[email-masked]>
> >> Reviewed-by: Madhavan Srinivasan <[email-masked]>
> >> ---
> > 
> > Patch looks good to me.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Kajol Jain <[email-masked]>
> 
> Hi Arnaldo and Jiri,
> 	 Please let me know if you have any comments on these patches. Can you pull/ack these
> patches if they seems fine to you.

Can you please clarify something here, I think I saw a kernel build bot
complaint followed by a fix, in these cases I think, for reviewer's
sake, that this would entail a v4 patchkit? One that has no such build
issues?

Or have I got something wrong?

- Arnaldo