From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932068AbdGJNML (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jul 2017 09:12:11 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:49480 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753563AbdGJNMK (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jul 2017 09:12:10 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 08:10:50 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool To: "Jin, Yao" Cc: Michael Ellerman , acme@kernel.org, jolsa@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, kan.liang@intel.com, ak@linux.intel.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yao.jin@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/7] perf/core: Define the common branch type classification Message-ID: <20170710131049.GA13471@gate.crashing.org> References: <1492690075-17243-1-git-send-email-yao.jin@linux.intel.com> <1492690075-17243-2-git-send-email-yao.jin@linux.intel.com> <87r2xoj08g.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> <820424b8-d7b3-56cc-2b97-ec570d44ec25@linux.intel.com> <87h8ykvayi.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 07:46:17PM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote: > 1. We all agree these definitions: > > + PERF_BR_COND = 1, /* conditional */ > + PERF_BR_UNCOND = 2, /* unconditional */ > + PERF_BR_IND = 3, /* indirect */ > + PERF_BR_CALL = 4, /* call */ > + PERF_BR_IND_CALL = 5, /* indirect call */ > + PERF_BR_RET = 6, /* return */ > + PERF_BR_SYSCALL = 7, /* syscall */ > + PERF_BR_SYSRET = 8, /* syscall return */ > + PERF_BR_IRET = 11, /* return from interrupt */ Do we? It does not map very well to PowerPC branch types. > 2. I wish to keep following definitions for x86. > > + PERF_BR_IRQ = 9, /* hw interrupt/trap/fault */ > + PERF_BR_INT = 10, /* sw interrupt */ > > PERF_BR_INT is triggered by instruction "int" . > PERF_BR_IRQ is triggered by interrupts, traps, faults (the ring 0,3 > transition). So your "PERF_BR_INT" is a system call? And PERF_BR_IRQ is not an interrupt request (as its name suggests), not what we call an "external interrupt" either; instead it is every interrupt that is not a system call? It also does not follow the lines of "software caused interrupt" vs. the rest. > 4. I'd like to add following types for powerpc. > > PERF_BR_COND_CALL /* Conditional call */ > PERF_BR_COND_RET /* Condition return */ Almost all PowerPC branches have a "conditional" version (only "syscall" and "sysret/iret" do not -- and those last two are the same, just like PERF_BR_INT seems to be the same as PERF_BR_SYSCALL). So how should those PERF_BR_* be used? It cannot be used in an architecture-neutral interface the way you define it now. Segher