linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3] perf vendor events riscv: add T-HEAD C9xx JSON file

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: <IA1PR20MB4953FCC20C89F2659EB34896BB7F9@IA1PR20MB4953.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 May 2023 17:48:27 +0800
From:   Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@...look.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Nikita Shubin <n.shubin@...ro.com>,
        Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@...look.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] perf vendor events riscv: add T-HEAD C9xx JSON file

> licheerv # perf record
> [  432.015618] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 26s!
> [perf:117]
> [  460.015617] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 52s!
> [perf:117]
> [  488.015616] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 78s!
> [perf:117]
> [  516.015617] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 104s!
> [perf:117]
>
> But that's not related to your patch anyway.

Same issue on c920, but it did not always occur.
Like a sbi issue for T-HEAD cpus.

> I am strongly against using "c9xx" wildcard, i would prefer declaring
> them separate (especially taking in mind that c920 is c910 with vector
> - AFAIK), but that's up to Arnaldo to decide.

AFAIK, there is no reliable way to distinguish c906 and c910 cores. And
the events of c910 and c920 are the same (according to the draft document
of the c920).

Anyway, I agree to let Arnaldo decide.

> Tested-by: Nikita Shubin <n.shubin@...ro.com>

Thanks.