From: Will C. <wc...@re...> - 2003-06-17 20:47:17
Attachments:
oprofile.diff
oprofile-0.5.2-s390.patch
|
Pete Zaitcev at Red Hat got s390 oprofile kernel support working on a 2.4 kernel. I adapted the patch for the 2.5.70 kernel. Martin Schwiderfsky looked over the patch, made a fix to the syscall table entry, and was able to use oprofile with the 2.5.70 kernel to collect data on an s390. The resulting kernel patch is attached to this email. There is also a minor patch required in oprofile for the lookup_dcookie number. Pete requested the number for lookup_dcookie, so 110 should be the official number for the s390. -Will |
From: John L. <le...@mo...> - 2003-06-17 21:03:45
|
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 04:47:04PM -0400, Will Cohen wrote: > Pete Zaitcev at Red Hat got s390 oprofile kernel support working on a > 2.4 kernel. I adapted the patch for the 2.5.70 kernel. Martin > Schwiderfsky looked over the patch, made a fix to the syscall table > entry, and was able to use oprofile with the 2.5.70 kernel to collect > data on an s390. The resulting kernel patch is attached to this email. Why is the normal readprofile support dependent on CONFIG_OPROFILE ? All of s390_do_profile is inside #ifdef CONFIG_OPROFILE. Seems wrong ? Is this going to be merged via the arch maintainers or should I take it into my tree ? > There is also a minor patch required in oprofile for the lookup_dcookie > number. Pete requested the number for lookup_dcookie, so 110 should be > the official number for the s390. OK to apply now (but will need updating for current CVS trivially) regards, john |
From: Will C. <wc...@re...> - 2003-06-17 22:06:21
|
John Levon wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 04:47:04PM -0400, Will Cohen wrote: > > >>Pete Zaitcev at Red Hat got s390 oprofile kernel support working on a >>2.4 kernel. I adapted the patch for the 2.5.70 kernel. Martin >>Schwiderfsky looked over the patch, made a fix to the syscall table >>entry, and was able to use oprofile with the 2.5.70 kernel to collect >>data on an s390. The resulting kernel patch is attached to this email. > > > Why is the normal readprofile support dependent on CONFIG_OPROFILE ? > All of s390_do_profile is inside #ifdef CONFIG_OPROFILE. Seems wrong ? The #ifdef CONFIG_OPROFILE looks like it should be removed. It doesn't look like the s390 had the normal kernel profiling, so this may have been to avoid dealing with that. > Is this going to be merged via the arch maintainers or should I take it > into my tree ? I would think that it would go in via the s390 arch maintainer. I will work with the s390 maintainer (Martin Schwiderfsky) to get the patch to an acceptable state for 2.5 kernel and checked in. >>There is also a minor patch required in oprofile for the lookup_dcookie >>number. Pete requested the number for lookup_dcookie, so 110 should be >>the official number for the s390. > > > OK to apply now (but will need updating for current CVS trivially) S390 lookup_dcookie checked in. -Will |