From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@maine.edu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: perf: multiple mmap of fd behavior on x86/ARM
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 18:09:21 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170811170921.GC22445@leverpostej> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708111244570.2445@macbook-air>
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:51:12PM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2017, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Just to check, how does x86 behave on each of those kernel releases?
> >
> > Many things have changed since v4.4.
>
> I'm fairly sure this test (well, the equivelent code in
> tests/record_sample/record_mmap that I based the test on) has been passing
> on all of my x86 test machines since ~3.10 or so, or else I would noticed.
Ok.
> If I can get a custom kernel to boot on one of my machines I can start
> digging in and see if I can find where the EINVAL comes from.
>From a quick scan, I can't spot anything obvious that would affect the
arm64 perf mmap behaviour, that has changed since v4.9.
> This isn't some key thing that needs to be fixed, I was just curious about
> the behavior difference between x86 and ARM.
Sure; likewise I'm curious.
Thanks,
Mark.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-11 17:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-10 18:48 perf: multiple mmap of fd behavior on x86/ARM Vince Weaver
2017-08-11 10:01 ` Mark Rutland
2017-08-11 10:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-11 11:06 ` Mark Rutland
2017-08-11 14:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-14 10:57 ` Will Deacon
2017-08-11 15:25 ` Vince Weaver
2017-08-11 16:23 ` Mark Rutland
2017-08-11 16:51 ` Vince Weaver
2017-08-11 17:09 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2017-08-11 19:01 ` Vince Weaver
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170811170921.GC22445@leverpostej \
--to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=vincent.weaver@maine.edu \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox