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]

Date:   Fri, 23 Jun 2023 17:17:35 -0700
From:   Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To:     Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@...look.com>
Cc:     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>, 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>,
        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

Hello,

On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 2:50 AM Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@...look.com> wrote:
>
> > 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>

I'm collecting patches on behalf of Arnaldo this time.
It seems this patch was not picked up for a long time.

I think we can make changes for the c9xx wildcard later
if needed.  I'll process it in the current form.

Thanks,
Namhyung