* [PATCH] arm64: add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT config @ 2015-11-06 15:57 ` yalin wang 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: yalin wang @ 2015-11-06 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: catalin.marinas, will.deacon, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel; +Cc: yalin wang Add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT in Kconfig, so that we can enable this feature on ARM64 Signed-off-by: yalin wang <yalin.wang2010@gmail.com> --- arch/arm64/Kconfig | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig index 851fe11..782b5bd 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig @@ -103,6 +103,10 @@ config ARCH_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT config MMU def_bool y +config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT + bool + default y + config NO_IOPORT_MAP def_bool y if !PCI -- 1.9.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] arm64: add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT config @ 2015-11-06 15:57 ` yalin wang 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: yalin wang @ 2015-11-06 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel Add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT in Kconfig, so that we can enable this feature on ARM64 Signed-off-by: yalin wang <yalin.wang2010@gmail.com> --- arch/arm64/Kconfig | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig index 851fe11..782b5bd 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig @@ -103,6 +103,10 @@ config ARCH_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT config MMU def_bool y +config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT + bool + default y + config NO_IOPORT_MAP def_bool y if !PCI -- 1.9.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT config 2015-11-06 15:57 ` yalin wang @ 2015-11-06 16:05 ` Will Deacon -1 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2015-11-06 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: yalin wang; +Cc: catalin.marinas, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 11:57:58PM +0800, yalin wang wrote: > Add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT in Kconfig, so that > we can enable this feature on ARM64 Do you know what the prerequisites for HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT actually are (beyond those explicitly listed as dependencies for CONFIG_LATENCYTOP)? Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] arm64: add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT config @ 2015-11-06 16:05 ` Will Deacon 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2015-11-06 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 11:57:58PM +0800, yalin wang wrote: > Add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT in Kconfig, so that > we can enable this feature on ARM64 Do you know what the prerequisites for HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT actually are (beyond those explicitly listed as dependencies for CONFIG_LATENCYTOP)? Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT config 2015-11-06 16:05 ` Will Deacon @ 2015-11-06 16:11 ` yalin wang -1 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: yalin wang @ 2015-11-06 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon; +Cc: Catalin Marinas, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel i just enable it on ARM64, and it can work, i don’t see some special requirement to enable this config . > On Nov 7, 2015, at 00:05, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 11:57:58PM +0800, yalin wang wrote: >> Add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT in Kconfig, so that >> we can enable this feature on ARM64 > > Do you know what the prerequisites for HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT actually > are (beyond those explicitly listed as dependencies for CONFIG_LATENCYTOP)? > > Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] arm64: add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT config @ 2015-11-06 16:11 ` yalin wang 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: yalin wang @ 2015-11-06 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel i just enable it on ARM64, and it can work, i don?t see some special requirement to enable this config . > On Nov 7, 2015, at 00:05, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 11:57:58PM +0800, yalin wang wrote: >> Add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT in Kconfig, so that >> we can enable this feature on ARM64 > > Do you know what the prerequisites for HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT actually > are (beyond those explicitly listed as dependencies for CONFIG_LATENCYTOP)? > > Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT config 2015-11-06 16:11 ` yalin wang @ 2015-11-06 16:21 ` Will Deacon -1 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2015-11-06 16:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: yalin wang; +Cc: Catalin Marinas, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 12:11:16AM +0800, yalin wang wrote: > i just enable it on ARM64, > and it can work, > i don’t see some special requirement to enable this config . Right, so why does HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT exist? Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] arm64: add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT config @ 2015-11-06 16:21 ` Will Deacon 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2015-11-06 16:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 12:11:16AM +0800, yalin wang wrote: > i just enable it on ARM64, > and it can work, > i don?t see some special requirement to enable this config . Right, so why does HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT exist? Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT config 2015-11-06 16:21 ` Will Deacon @ 2015-11-10 7:41 ` Heiko Carstens -1 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Heiko Carstens @ 2015-11-10 7:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon; +Cc: yalin wang, Catalin Marinas, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 04:21:10PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 12:11:16AM +0800, yalin wang wrote: > > i just enable it on ARM64, > > and it can work, > > i don’t see some special requirement to enable this config . > > Right, so why does HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT exist? If I remember correctly then the only dependency was that an architecture must have implemented save_stack_trace_tsk(). See git commit a3afe70b83fdbbd4d757d2911900d168bc798a31. So the name of HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT is surely a not well chosen, and I think I introduced it back then. Oh, well. And looking through the kernel there is at least avr32 which would break at build time if the config option would be removed completely. So.. renaming it to STACKTRACE_TSK_SUPPORT would be a good idea. Will do when time permits, unless somebody else volunteers. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] arm64: add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT config @ 2015-11-10 7:41 ` Heiko Carstens 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Heiko Carstens @ 2015-11-10 7:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 04:21:10PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 12:11:16AM +0800, yalin wang wrote: > > i just enable it on ARM64, > > and it can work, > > i don?t see some special requirement to enable this config . > > Right, so why does HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT exist? If I remember correctly then the only dependency was that an architecture must have implemented save_stack_trace_tsk(). See git commit a3afe70b83fdbbd4d757d2911900d168bc798a31. So the name of HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT is surely a not well chosen, and I think I introduced it back then. Oh, well. And looking through the kernel there is at least avr32 which would break at build time if the config option would be removed completely. So.. renaming it to STACKTRACE_TSK_SUPPORT would be a good idea. Will do when time permits, unless somebody else volunteers. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT config 2015-11-10 7:41 ` Heiko Carstens @ 2015-11-10 10:05 ` Will Deacon -1 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2015-11-10 10:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Heiko Carstens Cc: yalin wang, Catalin Marinas, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Hi Heiko, On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 08:41:24AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 04:21:10PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 12:11:16AM +0800, yalin wang wrote: > > > i just enable it on ARM64, > > > and it can work, > > > i don’t see some special requirement to enable this config . > > > > Right, so why does HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT exist? > > If I remember correctly then the only dependency was that an architecture > must have implemented save_stack_trace_tsk(). > See git commit a3afe70b83fdbbd4d757d2911900d168bc798a31. Thanks for the pointer. > So the name of HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT is surely a not well chosen, and I > think I introduced it back then. Oh, well. > > And looking through the kernel there is at least avr32 which would break > at build time if the config option would be removed completely. > > So.. renaming it to STACKTRACE_TSK_SUPPORT would be a good idea. ftrace has a similar issue and solves it by having architectures define a `config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT' symbol. Over in kernel/trace/Kconfig, there's a `select STACKTRACE if STACKTRACE_SUPPORT', which means that kernel/stacktrace.c gets built and a dummy (weak symbol) version of save_stack_trace_tsk appears. I don't think adding another STACKTRACE-related Kconfig option is necessarily the best thing to do. Maybe we should instead have LATENCYTOP depend on STACKTRACE_SUPPORT (already the case) and select STACKTRACE? Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] arm64: add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT config @ 2015-11-10 10:05 ` Will Deacon 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2015-11-10 10:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel Hi Heiko, On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 08:41:24AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 04:21:10PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 12:11:16AM +0800, yalin wang wrote: > > > i just enable it on ARM64, > > > and it can work, > > > i don?t see some special requirement to enable this config . > > > > Right, so why does HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT exist? > > If I remember correctly then the only dependency was that an architecture > must have implemented save_stack_trace_tsk(). > See git commit a3afe70b83fdbbd4d757d2911900d168bc798a31. Thanks for the pointer. > So the name of HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT is surely a not well chosen, and I > think I introduced it back then. Oh, well. > > And looking through the kernel there is at least avr32 which would break > at build time if the config option would be removed completely. > > So.. renaming it to STACKTRACE_TSK_SUPPORT would be a good idea. ftrace has a similar issue and solves it by having architectures define a `config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT' symbol. Over in kernel/trace/Kconfig, there's a `select STACKTRACE if STACKTRACE_SUPPORT', which means that kernel/stacktrace.c gets built and a dummy (weak symbol) version of save_stack_trace_tsk appears. I don't think adding another STACKTRACE-related Kconfig option is necessarily the best thing to do. Maybe we should instead have LATENCYTOP depend on STACKTRACE_SUPPORT (already the case) and select STACKTRACE? Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT config 2015-11-10 10:05 ` Will Deacon @ 2015-11-10 11:01 ` Heiko Carstens -1 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Heiko Carstens @ 2015-11-10 11:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon; +Cc: yalin wang, Catalin Marinas, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:05:48AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi Heiko, > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 08:41:24AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 04:21:10PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 12:11:16AM +0800, yalin wang wrote: > > > > i just enable it on ARM64, > > > > and it can work, > > > > i don’t see some special requirement to enable this config . > > > > > > Right, so why does HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT exist? [...] > > And looking through the kernel there is at least avr32 which would break > > at build time if the config option would be removed completely. > > > > So.. renaming it to STACKTRACE_TSK_SUPPORT would be a good idea. > > ftrace has a similar issue and solves it by having architectures define > a `config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT' symbol. Over in kernel/trace/Kconfig, > there's a `select STACKTRACE if STACKTRACE_SUPPORT', which means > that kernel/stacktrace.c gets built and a dummy (weak symbol) version of > save_stack_trace_tsk appears. Ah, I wasn't aware of the weak symbol. > I don't think adding another STACKTRACE-related Kconfig option is > necessarily the best thing to do. Maybe we should instead have LATENCYTOP > depend on STACKTRACE_SUPPORT (already the case) and select STACKTRACE? LATENCYTOP also already selects STACKTRACE. So it looks like HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT could simply be removed. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] arm64: add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT config @ 2015-11-10 11:01 ` Heiko Carstens 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Heiko Carstens @ 2015-11-10 11:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:05:48AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi Heiko, > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 08:41:24AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 04:21:10PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 12:11:16AM +0800, yalin wang wrote: > > > > i just enable it on ARM64, > > > > and it can work, > > > > i don?t see some special requirement to enable this config . > > > > > > Right, so why does HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT exist? [...] > > And looking through the kernel there is at least avr32 which would break > > at build time if the config option would be removed completely. > > > > So.. renaming it to STACKTRACE_TSK_SUPPORT would be a good idea. > > ftrace has a similar issue and solves it by having architectures define > a `config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT' symbol. Over in kernel/trace/Kconfig, > there's a `select STACKTRACE if STACKTRACE_SUPPORT', which means > that kernel/stacktrace.c gets built and a dummy (weak symbol) version of > save_stack_trace_tsk appears. Ah, I wasn't aware of the weak symbol. > I don't think adding another STACKTRACE-related Kconfig option is > necessarily the best thing to do. Maybe we should instead have LATENCYTOP > depend on STACKTRACE_SUPPORT (already the case) and select STACKTRACE? LATENCYTOP also already selects STACKTRACE. So it looks like HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT could simply be removed. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT config 2015-11-10 11:01 ` Heiko Carstens @ 2015-11-10 11:18 ` Will Deacon -1 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2015-11-10 11:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Heiko Carstens Cc: yalin wang, Catalin Marinas, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:01:45PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:05:48AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > Hi Heiko, > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 08:41:24AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 04:21:10PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 12:11:16AM +0800, yalin wang wrote: > > > > > i just enable it on ARM64, > > > > > and it can work, > > > > > i don’t see some special requirement to enable this config . > > > > > > > > Right, so why does HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT exist? > [...] > > > And looking through the kernel there is at least avr32 which would break > > > at build time if the config option would be removed completely. > > > > > > So.. renaming it to STACKTRACE_TSK_SUPPORT would be a good idea. > > > > ftrace has a similar issue and solves it by having architectures define > > a `config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT' symbol. Over in kernel/trace/Kconfig, > > there's a `select STACKTRACE if STACKTRACE_SUPPORT', which means > > that kernel/stacktrace.c gets built and a dummy (weak symbol) version of > > save_stack_trace_tsk appears. > > Ah, I wasn't aware of the weak symbol. > > > I don't think adding another STACKTRACE-related Kconfig option is > > necessarily the best thing to do. Maybe we should instead have LATENCYTOP > > depend on STACKTRACE_SUPPORT (already the case) and select STACKTRACE? > > LATENCYTOP also already selects STACKTRACE. So it looks like > HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT could simply be removed. Ha, so it does! Patch below. The only non-trivial part was arch/arm/, which has a dependency on !SMP which I believe is no longer required as of d5996b2ff0e2 ("ARM: fix /proc/$PID/stack on SMP"). Will --->8 >From 8dfb40e92ac322cbd68bf9f16cbb11fc5e210269 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 11:10:04 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Kconfig: remove HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT As illustrated by a3afe70b83fd ("[S390] latencytop s390 support."), HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT is defined by an architecture to advertise an implementation of save_stack_trace_tsk. However, as of 9212ddb5eada ("stacktrace: provide save_stack_trace_tsk() weak alias") a dummy implementation is provided if STACKTRACE=y. Given that LATENCYTOP already depends on STACKTRACE_SUPPORT and selects STACKTRACE, we can remove HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT altogether. Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> --- arch/arc/Kconfig | 3 --- arch/arm/Kconfig | 5 ----- arch/metag/Kconfig | 3 --- arch/microblaze/Kconfig | 3 --- arch/parisc/Kconfig | 3 --- arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 3 --- arch/s390/Kconfig | 3 --- arch/sh/Kconfig | 3 --- arch/sparc/Kconfig | 4 ---- arch/unicore32/Kconfig | 3 --- arch/x86/Kconfig | 3 --- lib/Kconfig.debug | 1 - 12 files changed, 37 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arc/Kconfig b/arch/arc/Kconfig index 2c2ac3f3ff80..6dc312fd6480 100644 --- a/arch/arc/Kconfig +++ b/arch/arc/Kconfig @@ -73,9 +73,6 @@ config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT def_bool y select STACKTRACE -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT - def_bool y - config HAVE_ARCH_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE def_bool y depends on ARC_MMU_V4 diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig index 35854e8d97ff..94eff0c6b0f8 100644 --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig @@ -162,11 +162,6 @@ config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT bool default y -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT - bool - depends on !SMP - default y - config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT bool default y diff --git a/arch/metag/Kconfig b/arch/metag/Kconfig index 0b389a81c43a..a0fa88da3e31 100644 --- a/arch/metag/Kconfig +++ b/arch/metag/Kconfig @@ -36,9 +36,6 @@ config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT def_bool y -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT - def_bool y - config RWSEM_GENERIC_SPINLOCK def_bool y diff --git a/arch/microblaze/Kconfig b/arch/microblaze/Kconfig index 0bce820428fc..5ecd0287a874 100644 --- a/arch/microblaze/Kconfig +++ b/arch/microblaze/Kconfig @@ -67,9 +67,6 @@ config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT def_bool y -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT - def_bool y - source "init/Kconfig" source "kernel/Kconfig.freezer" diff --git a/arch/parisc/Kconfig b/arch/parisc/Kconfig index c36546959e86..16276d505cd6 100644 --- a/arch/parisc/Kconfig +++ b/arch/parisc/Kconfig @@ -79,9 +79,6 @@ config TIME_LOW_RES depends on SMP default y -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT - def_bool y - # unless you want to implement ACPI on PA-RISC ... ;-) config PM bool diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig index db49e0d796b1..89210bfdfc7a 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig +++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig @@ -47,9 +47,6 @@ config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT bool default y -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT - def_bool y - config TRACE_IRQFLAGS_SUPPORT bool default y diff --git a/arch/s390/Kconfig b/arch/s390/Kconfig index 3a55f493c7da..69e22b502d09 100644 --- a/arch/s390/Kconfig +++ b/arch/s390/Kconfig @@ -10,9 +10,6 @@ config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT def_bool y -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT - def_bool y - config RWSEM_GENERIC_SPINLOCK bool diff --git a/arch/sh/Kconfig b/arch/sh/Kconfig index d514df7e04dd..6c391a5d3e5c 100644 --- a/arch/sh/Kconfig +++ b/arch/sh/Kconfig @@ -130,9 +130,6 @@ config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT def_bool y -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT - def_bool y - config ARCH_HAS_ILOG2_U32 def_bool n diff --git a/arch/sparc/Kconfig b/arch/sparc/Kconfig index 56442d2d7bbc..3203e42190dd 100644 --- a/arch/sparc/Kconfig +++ b/arch/sparc/Kconfig @@ -101,10 +101,6 @@ config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT bool default y if SPARC64 -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT - bool - default y if SPARC64 - config ARCH_HIBERNATION_POSSIBLE def_bool y if SPARC64 diff --git a/arch/unicore32/Kconfig b/arch/unicore32/Kconfig index c9faddc61100..910aaaaed969 100644 --- a/arch/unicore32/Kconfig +++ b/arch/unicore32/Kconfig @@ -33,9 +33,6 @@ config NO_IOPORT_MAP config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT def_bool y -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT - def_bool y - config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT def_bool y diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig index db3622f22b61..9574f7d1fe97 100644 --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig @@ -177,9 +177,6 @@ config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT def_bool y -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT - def_bool y - config MMU def_bool y diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug index 16bf3bc25e3e..6984710e75c9 100644 --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug @@ -1547,7 +1547,6 @@ config FAULT_INJECTION_STACKTRACE_FILTER config LATENCYTOP bool "Latency measuring infrastructure" - depends on HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT depends on DEBUG_KERNEL depends on STACKTRACE_SUPPORT depends on PROC_FS -- 2.1.4 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] arm64: add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT config @ 2015-11-10 11:18 ` Will Deacon 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2015-11-10 11:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:01:45PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:05:48AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > Hi Heiko, > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 08:41:24AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 04:21:10PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 12:11:16AM +0800, yalin wang wrote: > > > > > i just enable it on ARM64, > > > > > and it can work, > > > > > i don?t see some special requirement to enable this config . > > > > > > > > Right, so why does HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT exist? > [...] > > > And looking through the kernel there is at least avr32 which would break > > > at build time if the config option would be removed completely. > > > > > > So.. renaming it to STACKTRACE_TSK_SUPPORT would be a good idea. > > > > ftrace has a similar issue and solves it by having architectures define > > a `config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT' symbol. Over in kernel/trace/Kconfig, > > there's a `select STACKTRACE if STACKTRACE_SUPPORT', which means > > that kernel/stacktrace.c gets built and a dummy (weak symbol) version of > > save_stack_trace_tsk appears. > > Ah, I wasn't aware of the weak symbol. > > > I don't think adding another STACKTRACE-related Kconfig option is > > necessarily the best thing to do. Maybe we should instead have LATENCYTOP > > depend on STACKTRACE_SUPPORT (already the case) and select STACKTRACE? > > LATENCYTOP also already selects STACKTRACE. So it looks like > HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT could simply be removed. Ha, so it does! Patch below. The only non-trivial part was arch/arm/, which has a dependency on !SMP which I believe is no longer required as of d5996b2ff0e2 ("ARM: fix /proc/$PID/stack on SMP"). Will --->8 >From 8dfb40e92ac322cbd68bf9f16cbb11fc5e210269 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 11:10:04 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Kconfig: remove HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT As illustrated by a3afe70b83fd ("[S390] latencytop s390 support."), HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT is defined by an architecture to advertise an implementation of save_stack_trace_tsk. However, as of 9212ddb5eada ("stacktrace: provide save_stack_trace_tsk() weak alias") a dummy implementation is provided if STACKTRACE=y. Given that LATENCYTOP already depends on STACKTRACE_SUPPORT and selects STACKTRACE, we can remove HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT altogether. Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> --- arch/arc/Kconfig | 3 --- arch/arm/Kconfig | 5 ----- arch/metag/Kconfig | 3 --- arch/microblaze/Kconfig | 3 --- arch/parisc/Kconfig | 3 --- arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 3 --- arch/s390/Kconfig | 3 --- arch/sh/Kconfig | 3 --- arch/sparc/Kconfig | 4 ---- arch/unicore32/Kconfig | 3 --- arch/x86/Kconfig | 3 --- lib/Kconfig.debug | 1 - 12 files changed, 37 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arc/Kconfig b/arch/arc/Kconfig index 2c2ac3f3ff80..6dc312fd6480 100644 --- a/arch/arc/Kconfig +++ b/arch/arc/Kconfig @@ -73,9 +73,6 @@ config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT def_bool y select STACKTRACE -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT - def_bool y - config HAVE_ARCH_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE def_bool y depends on ARC_MMU_V4 diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig index 35854e8d97ff..94eff0c6b0f8 100644 --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig @@ -162,11 +162,6 @@ config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT bool default y -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT - bool - depends on !SMP - default y - config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT bool default y diff --git a/arch/metag/Kconfig b/arch/metag/Kconfig index 0b389a81c43a..a0fa88da3e31 100644 --- a/arch/metag/Kconfig +++ b/arch/metag/Kconfig @@ -36,9 +36,6 @@ config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT def_bool y -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT - def_bool y - config RWSEM_GENERIC_SPINLOCK def_bool y diff --git a/arch/microblaze/Kconfig b/arch/microblaze/Kconfig index 0bce820428fc..5ecd0287a874 100644 --- a/arch/microblaze/Kconfig +++ b/arch/microblaze/Kconfig @@ -67,9 +67,6 @@ config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT def_bool y -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT - def_bool y - source "init/Kconfig" source "kernel/Kconfig.freezer" diff --git a/arch/parisc/Kconfig b/arch/parisc/Kconfig index c36546959e86..16276d505cd6 100644 --- a/arch/parisc/Kconfig +++ b/arch/parisc/Kconfig @@ -79,9 +79,6 @@ config TIME_LOW_RES depends on SMP default y -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT - def_bool y - # unless you want to implement ACPI on PA-RISC ... ;-) config PM bool diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig index db49e0d796b1..89210bfdfc7a 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig +++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig @@ -47,9 +47,6 @@ config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT bool default y -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT - def_bool y - config TRACE_IRQFLAGS_SUPPORT bool default y diff --git a/arch/s390/Kconfig b/arch/s390/Kconfig index 3a55f493c7da..69e22b502d09 100644 --- a/arch/s390/Kconfig +++ b/arch/s390/Kconfig @@ -10,9 +10,6 @@ config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT def_bool y -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT - def_bool y - config RWSEM_GENERIC_SPINLOCK bool diff --git a/arch/sh/Kconfig b/arch/sh/Kconfig index d514df7e04dd..6c391a5d3e5c 100644 --- a/arch/sh/Kconfig +++ b/arch/sh/Kconfig @@ -130,9 +130,6 @@ config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT def_bool y -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT - def_bool y - config ARCH_HAS_ILOG2_U32 def_bool n diff --git a/arch/sparc/Kconfig b/arch/sparc/Kconfig index 56442d2d7bbc..3203e42190dd 100644 --- a/arch/sparc/Kconfig +++ b/arch/sparc/Kconfig @@ -101,10 +101,6 @@ config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT bool default y if SPARC64 -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT - bool - default y if SPARC64 - config ARCH_HIBERNATION_POSSIBLE def_bool y if SPARC64 diff --git a/arch/unicore32/Kconfig b/arch/unicore32/Kconfig index c9faddc61100..910aaaaed969 100644 --- a/arch/unicore32/Kconfig +++ b/arch/unicore32/Kconfig @@ -33,9 +33,6 @@ config NO_IOPORT_MAP config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT def_bool y -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT - def_bool y - config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT def_bool y diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig index db3622f22b61..9574f7d1fe97 100644 --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig @@ -177,9 +177,6 @@ config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT def_bool y -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT - def_bool y - config MMU def_bool y diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug index 16bf3bc25e3e..6984710e75c9 100644 --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug @@ -1547,7 +1547,6 @@ config FAULT_INJECTION_STACKTRACE_FILTER config LATENCYTOP bool "Latency measuring infrastructure" - depends on HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT depends on DEBUG_KERNEL depends on STACKTRACE_SUPPORT depends on PROC_FS -- 2.1.4 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT config 2015-11-10 11:18 ` Will Deacon @ 2015-11-10 11:24 ` yalin wang -1 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: yalin wang @ 2015-11-10 11:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon Cc: Heiko Carstens, Catalin Marinas, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel > On Nov 10, 2015, at 19:18, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > > Ha, so it does! Patch below. The only non-trivial part was arch/arm/, > which has a dependency on !SMP which I believe is no longer required > as of d5996b2ff0e2 ("ARM: fix /proc/$PID/stack on SMP"). > > Will > > --->8 > > From 8dfb40e92ac322cbd68bf9f16cbb11fc5e210269 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 11:10:04 +0000 > Subject: [PATCH] Kconfig: remove HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT > > As illustrated by a3afe70b83fd ("[S390] latencytop s390 support."), > HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT is defined by an architecture to advertise an > implementation of save_stack_trace_tsk. > > However, as of 9212ddb5eada ("stacktrace: provide save_stack_trace_tsk() > weak alias") a dummy implementation is provided if STACKTRACE=y. > Given that LATENCYTOP already depends on STACKTRACE_SUPPORT and selects > STACKTRACE, we can remove HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT altogether. > > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > --- > arch/arc/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/arm/Kconfig | 5 ----- > arch/metag/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/microblaze/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/parisc/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/s390/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/sh/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/sparc/Kconfig | 4 ---- > arch/unicore32/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/x86/Kconfig | 3 --- > lib/Kconfig.debug | 1 - > 12 files changed, 37 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arc/Kconfig b/arch/arc/Kconfig > index 2c2ac3f3ff80..6dc312fd6480 100644 > --- a/arch/arc/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/arc/Kconfig > @@ -73,9 +73,6 @@ config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT > def_bool y > select STACKTRACE > > -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT > - def_bool y > - > config HAVE_ARCH_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE > def_bool y > depends on ARC_MMU_V4 > diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig > index 35854e8d97ff..94eff0c6b0f8 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig > @@ -162,11 +162,6 @@ config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT > bool > default y > > -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT > - bool > - depends on !SMP > - default y > - > config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT > bool > default y > diff --git a/arch/metag/Kconfig b/arch/metag/Kconfig > index 0b389a81c43a..a0fa88da3e31 100644 > --- a/arch/metag/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/metag/Kconfig > @@ -36,9 +36,6 @@ config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT > config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT > def_bool y > > -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT > - def_bool y > - > config RWSEM_GENERIC_SPINLOCK > def_bool y > > diff --git a/arch/microblaze/Kconfig b/arch/microblaze/Kconfig > index 0bce820428fc..5ecd0287a874 100644 > --- a/arch/microblaze/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/microblaze/Kconfig > @@ -67,9 +67,6 @@ config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT > config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT > def_bool y > > -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT > - def_bool y > - > source "init/Kconfig" > > source "kernel/Kconfig.freezer" > diff --git a/arch/parisc/Kconfig b/arch/parisc/Kconfig > index c36546959e86..16276d505cd6 100644 > --- a/arch/parisc/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/parisc/Kconfig > @@ -79,9 +79,6 @@ config TIME_LOW_RES > depends on SMP > default y > > -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT > - def_bool y > - > # unless you want to implement ACPI on PA-RISC ... ;-) > config PM > bool > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig > index db49e0d796b1..89210bfdfc7a 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig > @@ -47,9 +47,6 @@ config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT > bool > default y > > -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT > - def_bool y > - > config TRACE_IRQFLAGS_SUPPORT > bool > default y > diff --git a/arch/s390/Kconfig b/arch/s390/Kconfig > index 3a55f493c7da..69e22b502d09 100644 > --- a/arch/s390/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/s390/Kconfig > @@ -10,9 +10,6 @@ config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT > config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT > def_bool y > > -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT > - def_bool y > - > config RWSEM_GENERIC_SPINLOCK > bool > > diff --git a/arch/sh/Kconfig b/arch/sh/Kconfig > index d514df7e04dd..6c391a5d3e5c 100644 > --- a/arch/sh/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/sh/Kconfig > @@ -130,9 +130,6 @@ config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT > config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT > def_bool y > > -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT > - def_bool y > - > config ARCH_HAS_ILOG2_U32 > def_bool n > > diff --git a/arch/sparc/Kconfig b/arch/sparc/Kconfig > index 56442d2d7bbc..3203e42190dd 100644 > --- a/arch/sparc/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/sparc/Kconfig > @@ -101,10 +101,6 @@ config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT > bool > default y if SPARC64 > > -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT > - bool > - default y if SPARC64 > - > config ARCH_HIBERNATION_POSSIBLE > def_bool y if SPARC64 > > diff --git a/arch/unicore32/Kconfig b/arch/unicore32/Kconfig > index c9faddc61100..910aaaaed969 100644 > --- a/arch/unicore32/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/unicore32/Kconfig > @@ -33,9 +33,6 @@ config NO_IOPORT_MAP > config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT > def_bool y > > -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT > - def_bool y > - > config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT > def_bool y > > diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig > index db3622f22b61..9574f7d1fe97 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig > @@ -177,9 +177,6 @@ config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT > config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT > def_bool y > > -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT > - def_bool y > - > config MMU > def_bool y > > diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug > index 16bf3bc25e3e..6984710e75c9 100644 > --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug > +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug > @@ -1547,7 +1547,6 @@ config FAULT_INJECTION_STACKTRACE_FILTER > > config LATENCYTOP > bool "Latency measuring infrastructure" > - depends on HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT > depends on DEBUG_KERNEL > depends on STACKTRACE_SUPPORT > depends on PROC_FS > -- > 2.1.4 seems fine. :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] arm64: add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT config @ 2015-11-10 11:24 ` yalin wang 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: yalin wang @ 2015-11-10 11:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel > On Nov 10, 2015, at 19:18, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > > Ha, so it does! Patch below. The only non-trivial part was arch/arm/, > which has a dependency on !SMP which I believe is no longer required > as of d5996b2ff0e2 ("ARM: fix /proc/$PID/stack on SMP"). > > Will > > --->8 > > From 8dfb40e92ac322cbd68bf9f16cbb11fc5e210269 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 11:10:04 +0000 > Subject: [PATCH] Kconfig: remove HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT > > As illustrated by a3afe70b83fd ("[S390] latencytop s390 support."), > HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT is defined by an architecture to advertise an > implementation of save_stack_trace_tsk. > > However, as of 9212ddb5eada ("stacktrace: provide save_stack_trace_tsk() > weak alias") a dummy implementation is provided if STACKTRACE=y. > Given that LATENCYTOP already depends on STACKTRACE_SUPPORT and selects > STACKTRACE, we can remove HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT altogether. > > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > --- > arch/arc/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/arm/Kconfig | 5 ----- > arch/metag/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/microblaze/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/parisc/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/s390/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/sh/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/sparc/Kconfig | 4 ---- > arch/unicore32/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/x86/Kconfig | 3 --- > lib/Kconfig.debug | 1 - > 12 files changed, 37 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arc/Kconfig b/arch/arc/Kconfig > index 2c2ac3f3ff80..6dc312fd6480 100644 > --- a/arch/arc/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/arc/Kconfig > @@ -73,9 +73,6 @@ config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT > def_bool y > select STACKTRACE > > -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT > - def_bool y > - > config HAVE_ARCH_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE > def_bool y > depends on ARC_MMU_V4 > diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig > index 35854e8d97ff..94eff0c6b0f8 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig > @@ -162,11 +162,6 @@ config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT > bool > default y > > -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT > - bool > - depends on !SMP > - default y > - > config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT > bool > default y > diff --git a/arch/metag/Kconfig b/arch/metag/Kconfig > index 0b389a81c43a..a0fa88da3e31 100644 > --- a/arch/metag/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/metag/Kconfig > @@ -36,9 +36,6 @@ config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT > config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT > def_bool y > > -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT > - def_bool y > - > config RWSEM_GENERIC_SPINLOCK > def_bool y > > diff --git a/arch/microblaze/Kconfig b/arch/microblaze/Kconfig > index 0bce820428fc..5ecd0287a874 100644 > --- a/arch/microblaze/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/microblaze/Kconfig > @@ -67,9 +67,6 @@ config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT > config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT > def_bool y > > -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT > - def_bool y > - > source "init/Kconfig" > > source "kernel/Kconfig.freezer" > diff --git a/arch/parisc/Kconfig b/arch/parisc/Kconfig > index c36546959e86..16276d505cd6 100644 > --- a/arch/parisc/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/parisc/Kconfig > @@ -79,9 +79,6 @@ config TIME_LOW_RES > depends on SMP > default y > > -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT > - def_bool y > - > # unless you want to implement ACPI on PA-RISC ... ;-) > config PM > bool > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig > index db49e0d796b1..89210bfdfc7a 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig > @@ -47,9 +47,6 @@ config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT > bool > default y > > -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT > - def_bool y > - > config TRACE_IRQFLAGS_SUPPORT > bool > default y > diff --git a/arch/s390/Kconfig b/arch/s390/Kconfig > index 3a55f493c7da..69e22b502d09 100644 > --- a/arch/s390/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/s390/Kconfig > @@ -10,9 +10,6 @@ config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT > config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT > def_bool y > > -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT > - def_bool y > - > config RWSEM_GENERIC_SPINLOCK > bool > > diff --git a/arch/sh/Kconfig b/arch/sh/Kconfig > index d514df7e04dd..6c391a5d3e5c 100644 > --- a/arch/sh/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/sh/Kconfig > @@ -130,9 +130,6 @@ config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT > config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT > def_bool y > > -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT > - def_bool y > - > config ARCH_HAS_ILOG2_U32 > def_bool n > > diff --git a/arch/sparc/Kconfig b/arch/sparc/Kconfig > index 56442d2d7bbc..3203e42190dd 100644 > --- a/arch/sparc/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/sparc/Kconfig > @@ -101,10 +101,6 @@ config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT > bool > default y if SPARC64 > > -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT > - bool > - default y if SPARC64 > - > config ARCH_HIBERNATION_POSSIBLE > def_bool y if SPARC64 > > diff --git a/arch/unicore32/Kconfig b/arch/unicore32/Kconfig > index c9faddc61100..910aaaaed969 100644 > --- a/arch/unicore32/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/unicore32/Kconfig > @@ -33,9 +33,6 @@ config NO_IOPORT_MAP > config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT > def_bool y > > -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT > - def_bool y > - > config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT > def_bool y > > diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig > index db3622f22b61..9574f7d1fe97 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig > @@ -177,9 +177,6 @@ config LOCKDEP_SUPPORT > config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT > def_bool y > > -config HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT > - def_bool y > - > config MMU > def_bool y > > diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug > index 16bf3bc25e3e..6984710e75c9 100644 > --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug > +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug > @@ -1547,7 +1547,6 @@ config FAULT_INJECTION_STACKTRACE_FILTER > > config LATENCYTOP > bool "Latency measuring infrastructure" > - depends on HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT > depends on DEBUG_KERNEL > depends on STACKTRACE_SUPPORT > depends on PROC_FS > -- > 2.1.4 seems fine. :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT config 2015-11-10 11:18 ` Will Deacon @ 2015-11-10 11:34 ` Heiko Carstens -1 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Heiko Carstens @ 2015-11-10 11:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon; +Cc: yalin wang, Catalin Marinas, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel > From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 11:10:04 +0000 > Subject: [PATCH] Kconfig: remove HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT > > As illustrated by a3afe70b83fd ("[S390] latencytop s390 support."), > HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT is defined by an architecture to advertise an > implementation of save_stack_trace_tsk. > > However, as of 9212ddb5eada ("stacktrace: provide save_stack_trace_tsk() > weak alias") a dummy implementation is provided if STACKTRACE=y. > Given that LATENCYTOP already depends on STACKTRACE_SUPPORT and selects > STACKTRACE, we can remove HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT altogether. > > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > --- > arch/arc/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/arm/Kconfig | 5 ----- > arch/metag/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/microblaze/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/parisc/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/s390/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/sh/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/sparc/Kconfig | 4 ---- > arch/unicore32/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/x86/Kconfig | 3 --- > lib/Kconfig.debug | 1 - > 12 files changed, 37 deletions(-) Acked-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] arm64: add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT config @ 2015-11-10 11:34 ` Heiko Carstens 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Heiko Carstens @ 2015-11-10 11:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel > From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 11:10:04 +0000 > Subject: [PATCH] Kconfig: remove HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT > > As illustrated by a3afe70b83fd ("[S390] latencytop s390 support."), > HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT is defined by an architecture to advertise an > implementation of save_stack_trace_tsk. > > However, as of 9212ddb5eada ("stacktrace: provide save_stack_trace_tsk() > weak alias") a dummy implementation is provided if STACKTRACE=y. > Given that LATENCYTOP already depends on STACKTRACE_SUPPORT and selects > STACKTRACE, we can remove HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT altogether. > > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > --- > arch/arc/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/arm/Kconfig | 5 ----- > arch/metag/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/microblaze/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/parisc/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/s390/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/sh/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/sparc/Kconfig | 4 ---- > arch/unicore32/Kconfig | 3 --- > arch/x86/Kconfig | 3 --- > lib/Kconfig.debug | 1 - > 12 files changed, 37 deletions(-) Acked-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT config 2015-11-10 11:34 ` Heiko Carstens @ 2015-12-14 22:02 ` Shi, Yang -1 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Shi, Yang @ 2015-12-14 22:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Heiko Carstens, Will Deacon Cc: Catalin Marinas, yalin wang, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel Hi folks, I tried to enable latencytop for arm64 and came across this discussion, so any plan about when this will get merged into mainline? 4.5 merge window? Thanks, Yang On 11/10/2015 3:34 AM, Heiko Carstens wrote: >> From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> >> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 11:10:04 +0000 >> Subject: [PATCH] Kconfig: remove HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT >> >> As illustrated by a3afe70b83fd ("[S390] latencytop s390 support."), >> HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT is defined by an architecture to advertise an >> implementation of save_stack_trace_tsk. >> >> However, as of 9212ddb5eada ("stacktrace: provide save_stack_trace_tsk() >> weak alias") a dummy implementation is provided if STACKTRACE=y. >> Given that LATENCYTOP already depends on STACKTRACE_SUPPORT and selects >> STACKTRACE, we can remove HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT altogether. >> >> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> >> --- >> arch/arc/Kconfig | 3 --- >> arch/arm/Kconfig | 5 ----- >> arch/metag/Kconfig | 3 --- >> arch/microblaze/Kconfig | 3 --- >> arch/parisc/Kconfig | 3 --- >> arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 3 --- >> arch/s390/Kconfig | 3 --- >> arch/sh/Kconfig | 3 --- >> arch/sparc/Kconfig | 4 ---- >> arch/unicore32/Kconfig | 3 --- >> arch/x86/Kconfig | 3 --- >> lib/Kconfig.debug | 1 - >> 12 files changed, 37 deletions(-) > > Acked-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] arm64: add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT config @ 2015-12-14 22:02 ` Shi, Yang 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Shi, Yang @ 2015-12-14 22:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel Hi folks, I tried to enable latencytop for arm64 and came across this discussion, so any plan about when this will get merged into mainline? 4.5 merge window? Thanks, Yang On 11/10/2015 3:34 AM, Heiko Carstens wrote: >> From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> >> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 11:10:04 +0000 >> Subject: [PATCH] Kconfig: remove HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT >> >> As illustrated by a3afe70b83fd ("[S390] latencytop s390 support."), >> HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT is defined by an architecture to advertise an >> implementation of save_stack_trace_tsk. >> >> However, as of 9212ddb5eada ("stacktrace: provide save_stack_trace_tsk() >> weak alias") a dummy implementation is provided if STACKTRACE=y. >> Given that LATENCYTOP already depends on STACKTRACE_SUPPORT and selects >> STACKTRACE, we can remove HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT altogether. >> >> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> >> --- >> arch/arc/Kconfig | 3 --- >> arch/arm/Kconfig | 5 ----- >> arch/metag/Kconfig | 3 --- >> arch/microblaze/Kconfig | 3 --- >> arch/parisc/Kconfig | 3 --- >> arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 3 --- >> arch/s390/Kconfig | 3 --- >> arch/sh/Kconfig | 3 --- >> arch/sparc/Kconfig | 4 ---- >> arch/unicore32/Kconfig | 3 --- >> arch/x86/Kconfig | 3 --- >> lib/Kconfig.debug | 1 - >> 12 files changed, 37 deletions(-) > > Acked-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT config 2015-12-14 22:02 ` Shi, Yang @ 2015-12-15 9:48 ` Will Deacon -1 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2015-12-15 9:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Shi, Yang Cc: Heiko Carstens, Catalin Marinas, yalin wang, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 02:02:18PM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote: > I tried to enable latencytop for arm64 and came across this discussion, so > any plan about when this will get merged into mainline? 4.5 merge window? It's queued in linux-next, so I imagine its heading for 4.5. Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] arm64: add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT config @ 2015-12-15 9:48 ` Will Deacon 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2015-12-15 9:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 02:02:18PM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote: > I tried to enable latencytop for arm64 and came across this discussion, so > any plan about when this will get merged into mainline? 4.5 merge window? It's queued in linux-next, so I imagine its heading for 4.5. Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-12-15 9:49 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 24+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2015-11-06 15:57 [PATCH] arm64: add HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT config yalin wang 2015-11-06 15:57 ` yalin wang 2015-11-06 16:05 ` Will Deacon 2015-11-06 16:05 ` Will Deacon 2015-11-06 16:11 ` yalin wang 2015-11-06 16:11 ` yalin wang 2015-11-06 16:21 ` Will Deacon 2015-11-06 16:21 ` Will Deacon 2015-11-10 7:41 ` Heiko Carstens 2015-11-10 7:41 ` Heiko Carstens 2015-11-10 10:05 ` Will Deacon 2015-11-10 10:05 ` Will Deacon 2015-11-10 11:01 ` Heiko Carstens 2015-11-10 11:01 ` Heiko Carstens 2015-11-10 11:18 ` Will Deacon 2015-11-10 11:18 ` Will Deacon 2015-11-10 11:24 ` yalin wang 2015-11-10 11:24 ` yalin wang 2015-11-10 11:34 ` Heiko Carstens 2015-11-10 11:34 ` Heiko Carstens 2015-12-14 22:02 ` Shi, Yang 2015-12-14 22:02 ` Shi, Yang 2015-12-15 9:48 ` Will Deacon 2015-12-15 9:48 ` Will Deacon
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.