From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751447AbdBFRTY (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 6 Feb 2017 12:19:24 -0500
Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([193.170.194.197]:36263 "EHLO
        one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750950AbdBFRTX (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 6 Feb 2017 12:19:23 -0500
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 09:19:21 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        vince@deater.net, eranian@google.com,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@infradead.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel/pt: Allow disabling branch tracing
Message-ID: <20170206171921.GG26852@two.firstfloor.org>
References: <87inosaoi1.fsf@ashishki-desk.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <20170206144140.14402-1-alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>
 <87efzbjopq.fsf@firstfloor.org>
 <87mvdz8fue.fsf@ashishki-desk.ger.corp.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87mvdz8fue.fsf@ashishki-desk.ger.corp.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 06:05:29PM +0200, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> writes:
> 
> > Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com> writes:
> >
> >> Now that Intel PT supports more types of trace content than just branch
> >> tracing, it may be useful to allow the user to disable branch tracing
> >> when it is not needed.
> >>
> >> The special case is BDW, where not setting BranchEn is not supported.
> >>
> >> This is slightly trickier than necessary, because up to this moment
> >> the driver has been setting BranchEn automatically and the userspace
> >> assumes as much. Instead of reversing the semantics of BranchEn, we
> >> introduce a 'passthrough' bit, which will forego the default and allow
> >> the user to set BranchEn to their heart's content.
> >
> > cpu/passthrough=1,branchen=1/ seems far uglier/more complicanted to me
> > than the original cpu/nobranch=1/
> 
> It's /passthrough=1,branch=0/ or simply /passthrough=1/.

Ok, but still you have to list exactly to which flags passthrough
applies to, and it will only ever be branchen.

So basically you turned nobranch=1 into two more difficult to
explain flags without any future advantage.

That is why nobranch=1 is better. It is far easier to explain
and logical to the user.

-Andi