* Re: [PATCH] perf tools: add aarch64 registers to --user-regs
2020-11-27 15:39 [PATCH] perf tools: add aarch64 registers to --user-regs Alexandre Truong
@ 2020-11-30 15:54 ` James Clark
2020-11-30 17:30 ` John Garry
2020-12-01 3:46 ` Leo Yan
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: James Clark @ 2020-11-30 15:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre Truong, linux-kernel, linux-perf-users
Cc: John Garry, Leo Yan, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, Jiri Olsa, Namhyung Kim
On 27/11/2020 17:39, Alexandre Truong wrote:
> Previously, this command returns no help message on aarch64:
>
> -> ./perf record --user-regs=?
>
> available registers:
> Usage: perf record [<options>] [<command>]
> or: perf record [<options>] -- <command> [<options>]
>
> With this change, the registers are listed.
>
> -> ./perf record --user-regs=?
>
> available registers: x0 x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 x9 x10 x11 x12 x13 x14 x15 x16 x17 x18 x19 x20 x21 x22 x23 x24 x25 x26 x27 x28 x29 lr sp pc
>
> It's also now possible to record subsets of registers on aarch64:
>
> -> ./perf record --user-regs=x4,x5 ls
> -> ./perf report --dump-raw-trace
>
> 12801163749305260 0xc70 [0x40]: PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE(IP, 0x2): 51956/51956: 0xffffaa6571f0 period: 145785 addr: 0
> ... user regs: mask 0x30 ABI 64-bit
> .... x4 0x000000000000006c
> .... x5 0x0000001001000001
> ... thread: ls:51956
> ...... dso: /usr/lib64/ld-2.17.so
>
Checked that the registers can be listed with =? and that recording different combinations of registers works as expected.
Tested-by: James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] perf tools: add aarch64 registers to --user-regs
2020-11-27 15:39 [PATCH] perf tools: add aarch64 registers to --user-regs Alexandre Truong
2020-11-30 15:54 ` James Clark
@ 2020-11-30 17:30 ` John Garry
2020-11-30 17:41 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2020-12-01 3:46 ` Leo Yan
2 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: John Garry @ 2020-11-30 17:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre Truong, linux-kernel, linux-perf-users
Cc: james.clark, Leo Yan, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, Jiri Olsa,
Namhyung Kim, linux-arm-kernel, Mark Rutland, Will Deacon,
Mathieu Poirier
On 27/11/2020 15:39, Alexandre Truong wrote:
> Previously, this command returns no help message on aarch64:
>
> -> ./perf record --user-regs=?
>
> available registers:
> Usage: perf record [<options>] [<command>]
> or: perf record [<options>] -- <command> [<options>]
>
> With this change, the registers are listed.
>
> -> ./perf record --user-regs=?
>
> available registers: x0 x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 x9 x10 x11 x12 x13 x14 x15 x16 x17 x18 x19 x20 x21 x22 x23 x24 x25 x26 x27 x28 x29 lr sp pc
>
> It's also now possible to record subsets of registers on aarch64:
>
> -> ./perf record --user-regs=x4,x5 ls
> -> ./perf report --dump-raw-trace
>
> 12801163749305260 0xc70 [0x40]: PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE(IP, 0x2): 51956/51956: 0xffffaa6571f0 period: 145785 addr: 0
> ... user regs: mask 0x30 ABI 64-bit
> .... x4 0x000000000000006c
> .... x5 0x0000001001000001
> ... thread: ls:51956
> ...... dso: /usr/lib64/ld-2.17.so
>
> Cc: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
> Cc: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Truong <alexandre.truong@arm.com>
This looks ok, just adding in more guys recorded as reviewers in
MAINTAINERS.
John
> ---
> tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/perf_regs.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/perf_regs.c b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/perf_regs.c
> index 2833e101a..54efa12fd 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/perf_regs.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/perf_regs.c
> @@ -2,5 +2,38 @@
> #include "../../../util/perf_regs.h"
>
> const struct sample_reg sample_reg_masks[] = {
> + SMPL_REG(x0, PERF_REG_ARM64_X0),
> + SMPL_REG(x1, PERF_REG_ARM64_X1),
> + SMPL_REG(x2, PERF_REG_ARM64_X2),
> + SMPL_REG(x3, PERF_REG_ARM64_X3),
> + SMPL_REG(x4, PERF_REG_ARM64_X4),
> + SMPL_REG(x5, PERF_REG_ARM64_X5),
> + SMPL_REG(x6, PERF_REG_ARM64_X6),
> + SMPL_REG(x7, PERF_REG_ARM64_X7),
> + SMPL_REG(x8, PERF_REG_ARM64_X8),
> + SMPL_REG(x9, PERF_REG_ARM64_X9),
> + SMPL_REG(x10, PERF_REG_ARM64_X10),
> + SMPL_REG(x11, PERF_REG_ARM64_X11),
> + SMPL_REG(x12, PERF_REG_ARM64_X12),
> + SMPL_REG(x13, PERF_REG_ARM64_X13),
> + SMPL_REG(x14, PERF_REG_ARM64_X14),
> + SMPL_REG(x15, PERF_REG_ARM64_X15),
> + SMPL_REG(x16, PERF_REG_ARM64_X16),
> + SMPL_REG(x17, PERF_REG_ARM64_X17),
> + SMPL_REG(x18, PERF_REG_ARM64_X18),
> + SMPL_REG(x19, PERF_REG_ARM64_X19),
> + SMPL_REG(x20, PERF_REG_ARM64_X20),
> + SMPL_REG(x21, PERF_REG_ARM64_X21),
> + SMPL_REG(x22, PERF_REG_ARM64_X22),
> + SMPL_REG(x23, PERF_REG_ARM64_X23),
> + SMPL_REG(x24, PERF_REG_ARM64_X24),
> + SMPL_REG(x25, PERF_REG_ARM64_X25),
> + SMPL_REG(x26, PERF_REG_ARM64_X26),
> + SMPL_REG(x27, PERF_REG_ARM64_X27),
> + SMPL_REG(x28, PERF_REG_ARM64_X28),
> + SMPL_REG(x29, PERF_REG_ARM64_X29),
> + SMPL_REG(lr, PERF_REG_ARM64_LR),
> + SMPL_REG(sp, PERF_REG_ARM64_SP),
> + SMPL_REG(pc, PERF_REG_ARM64_PC),
> SMPL_REG_END
> };
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] perf tools: add aarch64 registers to --user-regs
2020-11-30 17:30 ` John Garry
@ 2020-11-30 17:41 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2020-11-30 17:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Garry
Cc: Alexandre Truong, linux-kernel, linux-perf-users, james.clark,
Leo Yan, Jiri Olsa, Namhyung Kim, linux-arm-kernel, Mark Rutland,
Will Deacon, Mathieu Poirier
Em Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 05:30:12PM +0000, John Garry escreveu:
> On 27/11/2020 15:39, Alexandre Truong wrote:
> > Previously, this command returns no help message on aarch64:
> >
> > -> ./perf record --user-regs=?
> >
> > available registers:
> > Usage: perf record [<options>] [<command>]
> > or: perf record [<options>] -- <command> [<options>]
> >
> > With this change, the registers are listed.
> >
> > -> ./perf record --user-regs=?
> >
> > available registers: x0 x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 x9 x10 x11 x12 x13 x14 x15 x16 x17 x18 x19 x20 x21 x22 x23 x24 x25 x26 x27 x28 x29 lr sp pc
> >
> > It's also now possible to record subsets of registers on aarch64:
> >
> > -> ./perf record --user-regs=x4,x5 ls
> > -> ./perf report --dump-raw-trace
> >
> > 12801163749305260 0xc70 [0x40]: PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE(IP, 0x2): 51956/51956: 0xffffaa6571f0 period: 145785 addr: 0
> > ... user regs: mask 0x30 ABI 64-bit
> > .... x4 0x000000000000006c
> > .... x5 0x0000001001000001
> > ... thread: ls:51956
> > ...... dso: /usr/lib64/ld-2.17.so
> >
> > Cc: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
> > Cc: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
> > Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Truong <alexandre.truong@arm.com>
>
> This looks ok, just adding in more guys recorded as reviewers in
> MAINTAINERS.
Taking that "this looks ok" as an Acked-by as per
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst/
> John
>
> > ---
> > tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/perf_regs.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/perf_regs.c b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/perf_regs.c
> > index 2833e101a..54efa12fd 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/perf_regs.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/perf_regs.c
> > @@ -2,5 +2,38 @@
> > #include "../../../util/perf_regs.h"
> > const struct sample_reg sample_reg_masks[] = {
> > + SMPL_REG(x0, PERF_REG_ARM64_X0),
> > + SMPL_REG(x1, PERF_REG_ARM64_X1),
> > + SMPL_REG(x2, PERF_REG_ARM64_X2),
> > + SMPL_REG(x3, PERF_REG_ARM64_X3),
> > + SMPL_REG(x4, PERF_REG_ARM64_X4),
> > + SMPL_REG(x5, PERF_REG_ARM64_X5),
> > + SMPL_REG(x6, PERF_REG_ARM64_X6),
> > + SMPL_REG(x7, PERF_REG_ARM64_X7),
> > + SMPL_REG(x8, PERF_REG_ARM64_X8),
> > + SMPL_REG(x9, PERF_REG_ARM64_X9),
> > + SMPL_REG(x10, PERF_REG_ARM64_X10),
> > + SMPL_REG(x11, PERF_REG_ARM64_X11),
> > + SMPL_REG(x12, PERF_REG_ARM64_X12),
> > + SMPL_REG(x13, PERF_REG_ARM64_X13),
> > + SMPL_REG(x14, PERF_REG_ARM64_X14),
> > + SMPL_REG(x15, PERF_REG_ARM64_X15),
> > + SMPL_REG(x16, PERF_REG_ARM64_X16),
> > + SMPL_REG(x17, PERF_REG_ARM64_X17),
> > + SMPL_REG(x18, PERF_REG_ARM64_X18),
> > + SMPL_REG(x19, PERF_REG_ARM64_X19),
> > + SMPL_REG(x20, PERF_REG_ARM64_X20),
> > + SMPL_REG(x21, PERF_REG_ARM64_X21),
> > + SMPL_REG(x22, PERF_REG_ARM64_X22),
> > + SMPL_REG(x23, PERF_REG_ARM64_X23),
> > + SMPL_REG(x24, PERF_REG_ARM64_X24),
> > + SMPL_REG(x25, PERF_REG_ARM64_X25),
> > + SMPL_REG(x26, PERF_REG_ARM64_X26),
> > + SMPL_REG(x27, PERF_REG_ARM64_X27),
> > + SMPL_REG(x28, PERF_REG_ARM64_X28),
> > + SMPL_REG(x29, PERF_REG_ARM64_X29),
> > + SMPL_REG(lr, PERF_REG_ARM64_LR),
> > + SMPL_REG(sp, PERF_REG_ARM64_SP),
> > + SMPL_REG(pc, PERF_REG_ARM64_PC),
> > SMPL_REG_END
> > };
> >
>
--
- Arnaldo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] perf tools: add aarch64 registers to --user-regs
2020-11-27 15:39 [PATCH] perf tools: add aarch64 registers to --user-regs Alexandre Truong
2020-11-30 15:54 ` James Clark
2020-11-30 17:30 ` John Garry
@ 2020-12-01 3:46 ` Leo Yan
2020-12-01 3:48 ` Leo Yan
2 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Leo Yan @ 2020-12-01 3:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre Truong
Cc: linux-kernel, linux-perf-users, james.clark, John Garry,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, Jiri Olsa, Namhyung Kim, Will Deacon,
Mark Rutland, Mathieu Poirier
On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 03:39:23PM +0000, Alexandre Truong wrote:
> Previously, this command returns no help message on aarch64:
>
> -> ./perf record --user-regs=?
>
> available registers:
> Usage: perf record [<options>] [<command>]
> or: perf record [<options>] -- <command> [<options>]
>
> With this change, the registers are listed.
>
> -> ./perf record --user-regs=?
>
> available registers: x0 x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 x9 x10 x11 x12 x13 x14 x15 x16 x17 x18 x19 x20 x21 x22 x23 x24 x25 x26 x27 x28 x29 lr sp pc
>
> It's also now possible to record subsets of registers on aarch64:
>
> -> ./perf record --user-regs=x4,x5 ls
> -> ./perf report --dump-raw-trace
>
> 12801163749305260 0xc70 [0x40]: PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE(IP, 0x2): 51956/51956: 0xffffaa6571f0 period: 145785 addr: 0
> ... user regs: mask 0x30 ABI 64-bit
> .... x4 0x000000000000006c
> .... x5 0x0000001001000001
> ... thread: ls:51956
> ...... dso: /usr/lib64/ld-2.17.so
Reviewed-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
Except this patch for enabling registers on aarch64, it's good to add
arm32's version in the file arch/arm/util/perf_regs.c.
Just note for a side topic, I checked a bit for the implementation for
x86/powerpc, you could consider to enable Statically Defined Tracing
in the perf_regs.c file as well. This can be separate task for
arm/arm64.
Thanks,
Leo
> Cc: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
> Cc: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Truong <alexandre.truong@arm.com>
> ---
> tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/perf_regs.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/perf_regs.c b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/perf_regs.c
> index 2833e101a..54efa12fd 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/perf_regs.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/perf_regs.c
> @@ -2,5 +2,38 @@
> #include "../../../util/perf_regs.h"
>
> const struct sample_reg sample_reg_masks[] = {
> + SMPL_REG(x0, PERF_REG_ARM64_X0),
> + SMPL_REG(x1, PERF_REG_ARM64_X1),
> + SMPL_REG(x2, PERF_REG_ARM64_X2),
> + SMPL_REG(x3, PERF_REG_ARM64_X3),
> + SMPL_REG(x4, PERF_REG_ARM64_X4),
> + SMPL_REG(x5, PERF_REG_ARM64_X5),
> + SMPL_REG(x6, PERF_REG_ARM64_X6),
> + SMPL_REG(x7, PERF_REG_ARM64_X7),
> + SMPL_REG(x8, PERF_REG_ARM64_X8),
> + SMPL_REG(x9, PERF_REG_ARM64_X9),
> + SMPL_REG(x10, PERF_REG_ARM64_X10),
> + SMPL_REG(x11, PERF_REG_ARM64_X11),
> + SMPL_REG(x12, PERF_REG_ARM64_X12),
> + SMPL_REG(x13, PERF_REG_ARM64_X13),
> + SMPL_REG(x14, PERF_REG_ARM64_X14),
> + SMPL_REG(x15, PERF_REG_ARM64_X15),
> + SMPL_REG(x16, PERF_REG_ARM64_X16),
> + SMPL_REG(x17, PERF_REG_ARM64_X17),
> + SMPL_REG(x18, PERF_REG_ARM64_X18),
> + SMPL_REG(x19, PERF_REG_ARM64_X19),
> + SMPL_REG(x20, PERF_REG_ARM64_X20),
> + SMPL_REG(x21, PERF_REG_ARM64_X21),
> + SMPL_REG(x22, PERF_REG_ARM64_X22),
> + SMPL_REG(x23, PERF_REG_ARM64_X23),
> + SMPL_REG(x24, PERF_REG_ARM64_X24),
> + SMPL_REG(x25, PERF_REG_ARM64_X25),
> + SMPL_REG(x26, PERF_REG_ARM64_X26),
> + SMPL_REG(x27, PERF_REG_ARM64_X27),
> + SMPL_REG(x28, PERF_REG_ARM64_X28),
> + SMPL_REG(x29, PERF_REG_ARM64_X29),
> + SMPL_REG(lr, PERF_REG_ARM64_LR),
> + SMPL_REG(sp, PERF_REG_ARM64_SP),
> + SMPL_REG(pc, PERF_REG_ARM64_PC),
> SMPL_REG_END
> };
> --
> 2.23.0
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] perf tools: add aarch64 registers to --user-regs
2020-12-01 3:46 ` Leo Yan
@ 2020-12-01 3:48 ` Leo Yan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Leo Yan @ 2020-12-01 3:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre Truong
Cc: linux-kernel, linux-perf-users, james.clark, John Garry,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, Jiri Olsa, Namhyung Kim, Will Deacon,
Mark Rutland, Mathieu Poirier
Correct for Will's email address, sorry for spamming.
On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 11:46:27AM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 03:39:23PM +0000, Alexandre Truong wrote:
> > Previously, this command returns no help message on aarch64:
> >
> > -> ./perf record --user-regs=?
> >
> > available registers:
> > Usage: perf record [<options>] [<command>]
> > or: perf record [<options>] -- <command> [<options>]
> >
> > With this change, the registers are listed.
> >
> > -> ./perf record --user-regs=?
> >
> > available registers: x0 x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 x9 x10 x11 x12 x13 x14 x15 x16 x17 x18 x19 x20 x21 x22 x23 x24 x25 x26 x27 x28 x29 lr sp pc
> >
> > It's also now possible to record subsets of registers on aarch64:
> >
> > -> ./perf record --user-regs=x4,x5 ls
> > -> ./perf report --dump-raw-trace
> >
> > 12801163749305260 0xc70 [0x40]: PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE(IP, 0x2): 51956/51956: 0xffffaa6571f0 period: 145785 addr: 0
> > ... user regs: mask 0x30 ABI 64-bit
> > .... x4 0x000000000000006c
> > .... x5 0x0000001001000001
> > ... thread: ls:51956
> > ...... dso: /usr/lib64/ld-2.17.so
>
> Reviewed-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
>
> Except this patch for enabling registers on aarch64, it's good to add
> arm32's version in the file arch/arm/util/perf_regs.c.
>
> Just note for a side topic, I checked a bit for the implementation for
> x86/powerpc, you could consider to enable Statically Defined Tracing
> in the perf_regs.c file as well. This can be separate task for
> arm/arm64.
>
> Thanks,
> Leo
>
> > Cc: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
> > Cc: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
> > Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Truong <alexandre.truong@arm.com>
> > ---
> > tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/perf_regs.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/perf_regs.c b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/perf_regs.c
> > index 2833e101a..54efa12fd 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/perf_regs.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/perf_regs.c
> > @@ -2,5 +2,38 @@
> > #include "../../../util/perf_regs.h"
> >
> > const struct sample_reg sample_reg_masks[] = {
> > + SMPL_REG(x0, PERF_REG_ARM64_X0),
> > + SMPL_REG(x1, PERF_REG_ARM64_X1),
> > + SMPL_REG(x2, PERF_REG_ARM64_X2),
> > + SMPL_REG(x3, PERF_REG_ARM64_X3),
> > + SMPL_REG(x4, PERF_REG_ARM64_X4),
> > + SMPL_REG(x5, PERF_REG_ARM64_X5),
> > + SMPL_REG(x6, PERF_REG_ARM64_X6),
> > + SMPL_REG(x7, PERF_REG_ARM64_X7),
> > + SMPL_REG(x8, PERF_REG_ARM64_X8),
> > + SMPL_REG(x9, PERF_REG_ARM64_X9),
> > + SMPL_REG(x10, PERF_REG_ARM64_X10),
> > + SMPL_REG(x11, PERF_REG_ARM64_X11),
> > + SMPL_REG(x12, PERF_REG_ARM64_X12),
> > + SMPL_REG(x13, PERF_REG_ARM64_X13),
> > + SMPL_REG(x14, PERF_REG_ARM64_X14),
> > + SMPL_REG(x15, PERF_REG_ARM64_X15),
> > + SMPL_REG(x16, PERF_REG_ARM64_X16),
> > + SMPL_REG(x17, PERF_REG_ARM64_X17),
> > + SMPL_REG(x18, PERF_REG_ARM64_X18),
> > + SMPL_REG(x19, PERF_REG_ARM64_X19),
> > + SMPL_REG(x20, PERF_REG_ARM64_X20),
> > + SMPL_REG(x21, PERF_REG_ARM64_X21),
> > + SMPL_REG(x22, PERF_REG_ARM64_X22),
> > + SMPL_REG(x23, PERF_REG_ARM64_X23),
> > + SMPL_REG(x24, PERF_REG_ARM64_X24),
> > + SMPL_REG(x25, PERF_REG_ARM64_X25),
> > + SMPL_REG(x26, PERF_REG_ARM64_X26),
> > + SMPL_REG(x27, PERF_REG_ARM64_X27),
> > + SMPL_REG(x28, PERF_REG_ARM64_X28),
> > + SMPL_REG(x29, PERF_REG_ARM64_X29),
> > + SMPL_REG(lr, PERF_REG_ARM64_LR),
> > + SMPL_REG(sp, PERF_REG_ARM64_SP),
> > + SMPL_REG(pc, PERF_REG_ARM64_PC),
> > SMPL_REG_END
> > };
> > --
> > 2.23.0
> >
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread