Messages in this thread | | | From | 平松雅巳 / HIRAMATU,MASAMI <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH 0/4] x86/insn: perf tools: Add a few new x86 instructions | Date | Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:13:54 +0000 |
| |
> From: Adrian Hunter [mailto:adrian.hunter@intel.com] > > On 01/09/15 14:38, 平松雅巳 / HIRAMATU,MASAMI wrote: > >> From: Ingo Molnar [mailto:mingo.kernel.org@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ingo Molnar > >> > >> > >> * Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi > >>> > >>> perf tools has a copy of the x86 instruction decoder for decoding > >>> Intel PT. [...] > >> > >> So that's the arch/x86/lib/insn.c instruction length decoder that the kernel uses > >> for kprobes et al - and the two versions already forked slightly: > >> > >> -#include "inat.h" > >> -#include "insn.h" > >> +#include <asm/inat.h> > >> +#include <asm/insn.h> > >> > >> it would be nice to add a diff check to the perf build, and (non-fatally) warn > >> during the build if the two versions depart from each other? > >> > >> This will make sure the two versions are fully in sync in the long run as well. > >> > >> ( Alternatively we could perhaps also librarize it into tools/lib/, and teach the > >> kernel build to pick that one up? ) > > > > Agreed, what I concern is that someone finds a bug and fixes one of them and > > another is not fixed. > > > > I'll see the forked version and check if it can be merged into the kernel. > > Ever since Linus complained about perf tools including kernel headers, I > have assumed we should have separate source code. That email thread was not > cc'ed to a mailing list but here is a quote: > > Em Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 08:53:46AM -0700, Linus Torvalds escreveu: > > So this is more fundamental, and looks like it's just due to perf > > abusing the kernel headers, and now that rbtree has rcu support > > ("rbtree: Make lockless searches non-fatal"), it gets tons of headers > > included that really don't work from user space. > > > > There might be other things going on, but the rbtree one seems to be a > > big one. I think perf needs to get its own rbtree header or something, > > instead of doing that insane "let's include random core kernel > > headers" thing.
OK, now I see what happened... Hmm, so at this point, I'll just port the test to arch/x86/tools/, since the kernel should have that.
Thanks,
| |