linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf vendor events: Add missing Neoverse V1 events

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YxJYv0IfvmL1BTrX@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 2 Sep 2022 16:25:51 -0300
From:   Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To:     Nick Forrington <nick.forrington@....com>
Cc:     John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        James Clark <james.clark@....com>,
        Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>,
        Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf vendor events: Add missing Neoverse V1 events

Em Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 03:12:49PM +0100, Nick Forrington escreveu:
> On 02/09/2022 09:04, John Garry wrote:
> > On 01/09/2022 16:18, Nick Forrington wrote:
> > > Based on updated data from:
> > > https://github.com/ARM-software/data/blob/master/pmu/neoverse-v1.json
> > > 
> > > which is based on PMU event descriptions from the Arm Neoverse V1
> > > Technical Reference Manual.
> > > 
> > > This adds the following missing events:
> > > ASE_INST_SPEC
> > > SVE_INST_SPEC
> > > SVE_PRED_SPEC
> > > SVE_PRED_EMPTY_SPEC
> > > SVE_PRED_FULL_SPEC
> > > SVE_PRED_PARTIAL_SPEC
> > > SVE_LDFF_SPEC
> > > SVE_LDFF_FAULT_SPEC
> > > FP_SCALE_OPS_SPEC
> > > FP_FIXED_OPS_SPEC
> > > 
> > > It also moves REMOTE_ACCESS from other.json to memory.json.
> > 
> > Any specific reason why? I see that neoverse n2 and a76-n1 still use
> > "other" json for REMOTE_ACCESS. Nicer to be consistent.
> 
> Thanks John, I agree on consistency.
> 
> I think memory is a better categorisation (for all CPUs), and this is
> consistent with what I submitted for various Cortex CPUs a while back.

Were those patches processed or is some still outstanding?
 
> I'd be happy to remove the REMOTE_ACCESS change here and update (or not)
> REMOTE_ACCESS for Neoverse separately.
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Nick Forrington<nick.forrington@....com>
> > > ---
> > 
> > Apart from above:
> > Reviewed-by: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
> Thanks, Nick

So, how should we proceed?

- Arnaldo