From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752718AbbIHE5C (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Sep 2015 00:57:02 -0400 Received: from e23smtp05.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.147]:60182 "EHLO e23smtp05.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752138AbbIHE47 (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Sep 2015 00:56:59 -0400 X-Helo: d23dlp03.au.ibm.com X-MailFrom: hemant@linux.vnet.ibm.com X-RcptTo: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <55EE6A61.3010301@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2015 10:26:01 +0530 From: Hemant Kumar User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Ellerman , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Alexander Yarygin CC: maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, warrier@linux.vnet.ibm.com, paulus@samba.org, scottwood@freescale.com, sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, mingo@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] perf,kvm/powerpc: Add kvm_perf.h for powerpc References: <1441003681-10259-1-git-send-email-hemant@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150831201300.GG4423@kernel.org> <55E54A4F.6090205@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150904205145.GB3475@kernel.org> <1441602655.12945.5.camel@ellerman.id.au> In-Reply-To: <1441602655.12945.5.camel@ellerman.id.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 15090804-0017-0000-0000-000001DA3B96 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/07/2015 10:40 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Fri, 2015-09-04 at 17:51 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: >> Em Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 12:18:47PM +0530, Hemant Kumar escreveu: >>>> Should I try to process the 5 together, applying thest two first? >> >>> Yes, this patchset needs to be applied before applying the other patchset, >>> since there is a direct dependency on these two for the tooling part to >>> work. >> >>>> I see there are no acks from powerpc arch maintainers, how should we >>>> proceed here? If there are no problems with the arch bits, and if it is >>>> just to enable the tooling part, again, should I process the 5 as just >>>> one series? >> >>> The reason to split the earlier patchset into two was to separate the >>> tooling/perf/ and arch/powerpc/ side patches, as asked by Michael.. >> >>> Here is the link to that discussion : >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org/msg86916.html >> >>> If Michael is ok with the patches, you can process all the 5 patches >>> together. Michael? >> Michael? > I'm not particularly happy with it. > > Can we at least remove this hunk from the uapi header: > > +/* This is to shut the compiler up */ > +#define KVM_ENTRY_TRACE "" > +#define KVM_EXIT_TRACE "" > +#define KVM_EXIT_REASON "" > Agreed, I didn't like this too, but I kept this because of the generic perf userspace code that looks for KVM_{ENTRY,EXIT}_TRACE and KVM_EXIT_REASON. We can remove this and put this hunk in the userspace side. Arnaldo, Can we remove the dependency on uapi altogether (also suggested by Scott) because it doesn't seem to fulfill much purpose? Rather, hardcode the events in the userspace completely (since, tracepoint event names are unlikely to change) ? Some of what is being done by x86 already in kvm-stat.c where its defining kvm_events_tp[] and its not using the macros, rather, the tracepoints directly. Macros are only being used in builtin-kvm.c where the tracepoint names are matched with KVM_{ENTRY,EXIT}_TRACE and when we are looking for the key KVM_EXIT_REASON. -- Thanks, Hemant Kumar