[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250310180318.GH9682@e132581.arm.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 18:03:18 +0000
From: Leo Yan <leo.yan@....com>
To: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
Cc: Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>,
James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, coresight@...ts.linaro.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] coresight: etm: Add an attribute for updating
buffer
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 04:37:44PM +0000, Suzuki Kuruppassery Poulose wrote:
[...]
> > How about we dynamically set the default flag in the Perf tool?
> >
> > - If users set explictly the 'update_buf_on_pause' flag, then the
> > setting will be respected.
> > - If users don't set the flag, perf tool detects it is TRBE sinks,
> > then it can set 'update_buf_on_pause' flag as false.
>
> Not really possible. There could be systems with mixed sinks. e.g. TRBE
> for some CPU and ETR for others (say due to a non-functioning TRBE).
>
> > - If users don't set the flag, perf tool detects it is ETF/ETB/ETR
> > sinks, it sets the flag as true.
>
> And in the cases above, perf event cannot run on all the CPUs, because
> some sinks don't support it.
>
> Why do we need a flag, when the effect is not user (read, perf decoder)
> visible and at the same time improves some scenarios (read non-TRBE cases)
> ?
Indeed in this case the flag is redundant.
> I would say, let the driver always update on pause, depending on the
> sink.
It is fine for me. I will move towards this direction.
Thanks,
Leo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists