Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 May 2018 08:57:47 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 8/9] perf/breakpoint: Split breakpoint "check" and "commit" |
| |
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 09:19:54PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > arch/arm/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h | 5 ++++- > > arch/arm/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 22 +++------------------- > > arch/arm64/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h | 5 ++++- > > arch/arm64/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 22 +++------------------- > > arch/powerpc/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h | 5 ++++- > > arch/powerpc/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 22 +++------------------- > > arch/sh/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h | 5 ++++- > > arch/sh/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 22 +++------------------- > > arch/x86/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h | 5 ++++- > > arch/x86/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 23 +++-------------------- > > arch/xtensa/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h | 5 ++++- > > arch/xtensa/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 22 +++------------------- > > Because of those ^, > > > kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c | 11 ++++++----- > > would it not make sense to have a prelimenary patch doing something > like: > > __weak int hw_breakpoint_arch_check(struct perf_event *bp) > { > return arch_validate_hwbkpt_settings(bp); > } > > __weak void hw_breakpoint_arch_commit(struct perf_event *bp) > { > } > > combined with this bit: > > > diff --git a/kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c b/kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c > > index 6e28d28..6896ceeb 100644 > > --- a/kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c > > +++ b/kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c > > @@ -402,11 +402,12 @@ int dbg_release_bp_slot(struct perf_event *bp) > > > > static int validate_hw_breakpoint(struct perf_event *bp) > > { > > - int ret; > > + int err; > > > > - ret = arch_validate_hwbkpt_settings(bp); > > - if (ret) > > - return ret; > > + err = hw_breakpoint_arch_check(bp, &bp->attr); > > + if (err) > > + return err; > > + hw_breakpoint_arch_commit(bp); > > > > if (arch_check_bp_in_kernelspace(bp)) { > > if (bp->attr.exclude_kernel) > > And then convert the archs over one by one, and at the end remove the > weak thingies entirely?
Makes sense.
The rest looks good to me - Frederic, once you implement Peter's uggestion I suspect this series can be applied.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |