[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a4d09c42-7303-90cb-61a8-817411faddf2@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2022 10:25:36 +0100
From: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Nick Forrington <nick.forrington@....com>
CC: <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
On 02/09/2022 20:25, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> 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?
To me it would be better to just update the categorization of the
REMOTE_ACCESS event for all cortex cores separately and just add the
missing Neoverse v1 events here.
Thanks,
John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists