Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1395115 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-05 15:30 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-05-05 15:30 +0200 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Misleading hint to select CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS if driver sets PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_INTERRUPT Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> - 2016-05-05 15:30 +0200
| From | Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-05 15:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Misleading hint to select CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS if driver sets PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_INTERRUPT |
| Message-ID | <rvrvR-MH-35@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Tuesday 26 April 2016 06:12 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote: > On Friday 22 April 2016 06:56 PM, Lada Trimasova wrote: >> I have a question about user-space perf handling error numbers. >> The problem is that PMU interrupts are not supported in arc700 >> architecture and it is impossible to evaluate `perf record` command. >> In our perf implementation we set PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_INTERRUPT flag so >> core perf infrastructure knows we don't have interrupts. >> >> Kernel `sys_perf_event_open` handler checks if PMU interrupts are >> supported and returns ENOTSUPP (524) error code. >> I'd expect that perf implementation checks the return value of syscalls >> and gives the user understandable error message. >> But now I see: >> --------------------------------->8----------------------------------- >> # perf record ls >> The sys_perf_event_open() syscall returned with 524 (Unknown error 524) >> for event (cycles:ppp). >> /bin/dmesg may provide additional information. >> No CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS=y kernel support configured? >> --------------------------------->8----------------------------------- Guys, is the ABI change for returning -EOPNOTSUPP vs. -ENOTSUPP for is_sampling_event() && (event->pmu->capabilities & PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_INTERRUPT) acceptable ? We could use this in userspace to print pretty rather than half cooked error msg above ! -Vineet
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web