Re: [PATCH 8/9] perf/breakpoint: Split breakpoint "check" and "commit"

[Ingo Molnar]

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 09:19:54PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >  arch/arm/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h     |  5 ++++-
> >  arch/arm/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c          | 22 +++-------------------
> >  arch/arm64/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h   |  5 ++++-
> >  arch/arm64/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c        | 22 +++-------------------
> >  arch/powerpc/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h |  5 ++++-
> >  arch/powerpc/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c      | 22 +++-------------------
> >  arch/sh/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h      |  5 ++++-
> >  arch/sh/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c           | 22 +++-------------------
> >  arch/x86/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h     |  5 ++++-
> >  arch/x86/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c          | 23 +++--------------------
> >  arch/xtensa/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h  |  5 ++++-
> >  arch/xtensa/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c       | 22 +++-------------------
> 
> Because of those ^,
> 
> >  kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c            | 11 ++++++-----
> 
> would it not make sense to have a prelimenary patch doing something
> like:
> 
> __weak int hw_breakpoint_arch_check(struct perf_event *bp)
> {
> 	return arch_validate_hwbkpt_settings(bp);
> }
> 
> __weak void hw_breakpoint_arch_commit(struct perf_event *bp)
> {
> }
> 
> combined with this bit:
> 
> > diff --git a/kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c b/kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c
> > index 6e28d28..6896ceeb 100644
> > --- a/kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c
> > +++ b/kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c
> > @@ -402,11 +402,12 @@ int dbg_release_bp_slot(struct perf_event *bp)
> >  
> >  static int validate_hw_breakpoint(struct perf_event *bp)
> >  {
> > -	int ret;
> > +	int err;
> >  
> > -	ret = arch_validate_hwbkpt_settings(bp);
> > -	if (ret)
> > -		return ret;
> > +	err = hw_breakpoint_arch_check(bp, &bp->attr);
> > +	if (err)
> > +		return err;
> > +	hw_breakpoint_arch_commit(bp);
> >  
> >  	if (arch_check_bp_in_kernelspace(bp)) {
> >  		if (bp->attr.exclude_kernel)
> 
> And then convert the archs over one by one, and at the end remove the
> weak thingies entirely?

Makes sense.

The rest looks good to me - Frederic, once you implement Peter's uggestion I 
suspect this series can be applied.

Thanks,

	Ingo