linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf cs-etm: Add support for coresight trace for any range of CPUs

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: <53132776-c998-a24f-a811-d8fb2e5e6535@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Apr 2023 16:44:21 +0100
From:   James Clark <james.clark@....com>
To:     Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gankulkarni@...amperecomputing.com>
Cc:     mathieu.poirier@...aro.org, acme@...nel.org,
        darren@...amperecomputing.com, scott@...amperecomputing.com,
        scclevenger@...amperecomputing.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        coresight@...ts.linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        mike.leach@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf cs-etm: Add support for coresight trace for any
 range of CPUs



On 20/04/2023 14:03, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 20/04/2023 13:37, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20-04-2023 06:00 pm, James Clark wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20/04/2023 12:47, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
>>>>
> 
> ...
> 
>>>> My patch is rebased on 6.3-RC7 codebase with Mike's 3 perf patches
>>>> related to dynamic id [1] support(queued for 6.4).
>>>>
>>>> "perf report -D" works for me.
>>>
>>> I was referring to sparse CPU lists, which I think you mentioned above
>>> doesn't work even with this patch.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-perf-users/msg27452.html
>>>>
>>>
>>> It should be based on the next branch here:
>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/coresight/linux.git
>>
>> OK.
> 
> It need not be. Since this patch is purely perf tools patch and has
> nothing to do with the kernel drivers, it should be beased on whatever
> the tip of the perf tool tree is. Otherwise we risk rebasing to that
> eventually.
> 
> Cheers
> Suzuki
> 

Good point, sorry for the confusion!

I wonder if we could have some kind of new staging branch that has both
up to date perf and coresight changes at the same time? Either that
would make things like this easier, or more complicated. I'm not sure.

I suppose I can DIY it quite easily but then everyone would have to as well.

James