[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190129095315.GH4344@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:53:15 +0100
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>, jolsa@...hat.com,
namhyung@...nel.org, dzickus@...hat.com, fowles@...each.com,
jmario@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, maddy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf mem/c2c: Fix perf_mem_events to support powerpc
Em Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 08:45:44PM +1100, Michael Ellerman escreveu:
> Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com> writes:
>
> > On 1/14/19 9:44 AM, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
> >> Powerpc hw does not have inbuilt latency filter (--ldlat) for mem-load
> >> event and, perf_mem_events by default includes ldlat=30 which is
> >> causing failure on powerpc. Refactor code to support perf mem/c2c on
> >> powerpc.
> >>
> >> This patch depends on kernel side changes done my Madhavan:
> >> https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2018-December/182596.html
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
> >
> >
> > Arnaldo / Michael, Any thoughts?
>
> I haven't merged the kernel patch, I think because Maddy told me not to
> because it would break the userspace tooling :)
>
> What is the actual dependency between them? ie. should we merge the
> kernel fix first or second or what?
I think its just a tooling side, I haven't processed it because I'm
waiting for Ravi to address Jiri's comment, after that I'm happy to put
it in my perf/urgent branch that I'm brewing to push to Ingo today or
tomorrow.
- Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists