Re: [PATCH] perf record/arm-spe: Override attr->sample_period for non-libpfm4 events

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Em Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 08:28:07AM -0800, Ian Rogers escreveu:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 2:27 AM German Gomez <german.gomez@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi James,
> >
> > On 17/01/2022 09:59, James Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > On 14/01/2022 21:21, German Gomez wrote:
> > >> A previous commit preventing attr->sample_period values from being
> > >> overridden in pfm events changed a related behaviour in arm_spe.
> > >>
> > >> Before this patch:
> > >> perf record -c 10000 -e arm_spe_0// -- sleep 1
> > >>
> > >> Would not yield an SPE event with period=10000, because the arm-spe code
> > > Just to clarify, this seems like it should say "Would yield", not "Would not yield",
> > > as in it was previously working?
> >
> > "this patch" refers to the patch I'm sending, not the one it's fixing.
> > I might have to rewrite this to make it more clear. How about:
> >
> > ===
> > A previous patch preventing "attr->sample_period" values from being
> > overridden in pfm events changed a related behaviour in arm-spe.
> >
> > Before said patch:
> > perf record -c 10000 -e arm_spe_0// -- sleep 1
> >
> > Would yield an SPE event with period=10000. After the patch, the period
> > in "-c 10000" was being ignored because the arm-spe code initializes
> > sample_period to a non-zero value.
> >
> > This patch restores the previous behaviour for non-libpfm4 events.
> > ===
> 
> Thanks for fixing this, I can add an acked-by for the v2 patch. Could

Ian,

	He posted a v2, can I add your Acked-by?

- Arnaldo

> we add a test for this to avoid future regressions? There are similar
> tests for frequency like:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git/tree/tools/perf/tests/attr/test-record-freq
> based on the attr.py test:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git/tree/tools/perf/tests/attr.py
> The test specifies a base type of event attribute and then what is
> modified by the test. It takes a little to get your head around but
> having a test for this would be a welcome addition.
> 
> Thanks!
> Ian
> 
> > Thanks for the review,
> > German

-- 

- Arnaldo



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux