[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210415144158.GD1011890@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 22:41:58 +0800
From: Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
To: James Clark <james.clark@....com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Al Grant <Al.Grant@....com>,
John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] perf arm-spe: Remove unused enum value
ARM_SPE_PER_CPU_MMAPS
Hi James,
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 05:13:36PM +0300, James Clark wrote:
> On 12/04/2021 12:10, Leo Yan wrote:
> > The enum value 'ARM_SPE_PER_CPU_MMAPS' is never used so remove it.
>
> Hi Leo,
>
> I think this causes an error when attempting to open a newly recorded file
> with an old version of perf. The value ARM_SPE_AUXTRACE_PRIV_MAX is used here:
>
> size_t min_sz = sizeof(u64) * ARM_SPE_AUXTRACE_PRIV_MAX;
> struct perf_record_time_conv *tc = &session->time_conv;
> struct arm_spe *spe;
> int err;
>
> if (auxtrace_info->header.size < sizeof(struct perf_record_auxtrace_info) +
> min_sz)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> And removing ARM_SPE_PER_CPU_MMAPS changes the value of ARM_SPE_AUXTRACE_PRIV_MAX.
>
> At least I think that's what's causing the problem. I get this error:
>
> ./perf report -i per-thread-spe-time.data
> 0x1c0 [0x18]: failed to process type: 70 [Invalid argument]
> Error:
> failed to process sample
> # To display the perf.data header info, please use --header/--header-only options.
> #
Yes, when working on this patch I had concern as well.
I carefully thought that the perf tool should be backwards-compatible,
but there have no requirement for forwards-compatibility. This is the
main reason why I kept this patch.
If you or anyone could confirm the forwards-compatibility is required,
it's quite fine for me to drop this patch.
Thanks a lot for the reviewing and testing!
Leo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists