From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750987AbaLOPmz (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Dec 2014 10:42:55 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.19.201]:34288 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752719AbaLOPmx (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Dec 2014 10:42:53 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 12:42:48 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Jiri Olsa Cc: David Ahern , Adrian Hunter , Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Frederic Weisbecker , Namhyung Kim , Paul Mackerras , Stephane Eranian Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 00/22] perf tools: Introduce an abstraction for Instruction Tracing Message-ID: <20141215154248.GI9845@kernel.org> References: <1418392089-5568-1-git-send-email-adrian.hunter@intel.com> <548B1425.7090500@gmail.com> <20141212185324.GF9845@kernel.org> <548EA52B.5060401@intel.com> <548EF9C1.2070505@gmail.com> <20141215151306.GA16737@krava.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141215151306.GA16737@krava.redhat.com> X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Em Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 04:13:06PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu: > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 08:09:53AM -0700, David Ahern wrote: > > On 12/15/14 2:08 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote: > > >On 12/12/14 20:53, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > >>Em Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 09:13:25AM -0700, David Ahern escreveu: > > >>>On 12/12/14 6:47 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote: > > >>>>Here is V3 of some more preparatory patches for Intel PT > > >>>>that introduce an abstraction for Instruction tracing. > > >> > > >>>This is an x86-Intel only feature correct? If that is the case then the code > > >>>should be not compiled for other architectures. > > > > > >It is not that simple. In the case of recording, it is not needed for > > >architectures that don't support it, but in the case of session processing > > >any architecture can (or should be able to) process the perf.data file of > > >any other architecture. > > > > Understood. perf is a kitchen sink tool and the size of binaries for > > embedded deployments is getting out of hand. e.g., for our PPC based systems > > the entire root filesystem is 46M with perf taking up almost 3M of that > > (stripped size too). New features need config options so user's can decide > > the feature scope of what they are building. And we need to get the kconfig > > style builds committed as well. > > yep.. I'm on that kconfig stuff ;-) Cool, we need that thing! - Arnaldo