just checking on the status of this patch. Am I sending it to the wrong
place? Did it get lost in the post-holiday e-mail purges?
The bug is annoying if you're trying to use perf on ARM systems.
Vince
On Mon, 30 Dec 2013, Vince Weaver wrote:
>
> "perf list" listing of hardware events doesn't work on older ARM devices.
> The change enabling event detection:
>
> commit b41f1cec91c37eeea6fdb15effbfa24ea0a5536b
> Author: Namhyung Kim <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue Aug 27 11:41:53 2013 +0900
>
> perf list: Skip unsupported events
>
>
> uses the following code in tools/perf/util/parse-events.c:
>
> struct perf_event_attr attr = {
> .type = type,
> .config = config,
> .disabled = 1,
> .exclude_kernel = 1,
> };
>
> On ARM machines pre-dating the Cortex-A15 this doesn't work, as
> these machines don't support .exclude_kernel. So starting with 3.12
> "perf list" does not report any hardware events at all on older
> machines (seen on Rasp-Pi, Pandaboard, Beagleboard, etc).
>
> This version of the patch makes changes suggested by Namhyung Kim
> to check for EACCESS and retry (instead of just dropping
> the exclude_kernel) so we can properly handle machines where
> /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_paranoid is set to 2.
>
> Reported-by: Chad Paradis <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Vince Weaver <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Namhyung Kim <[email protected]>
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/parse-events.c b/tools/perf/util/parse-events.c
> index 6de6f89..1fa98b9 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/parse-events.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/parse-events.c
> @@ -1082,12 +1082,12 @@ int is_valid_tracepoint(const char *event_string)
> static bool is_event_supported(u8 type, unsigned config)
> {
> bool ret = true;
> + int open_return;
> struct perf_evsel *evsel;
> struct perf_event_attr attr = {
> .type = type,
> .config = config,
> .disabled = 1,
> - .exclude_kernel = 1,
> };
> struct {
> struct thread_map map;
> @@ -1099,7 +1099,20 @@ static bool is_event_supported(u8 type, unsigned config)
>
> evsel = perf_evsel__new(&attr);
> if (evsel) {
> - ret = perf_evsel__open(evsel, NULL, &tmap.map) >= 0;
> + open_return = perf_evsel__open(evsel, NULL, &tmap.map);
> + ret = open_return >= 0;
> +
> + if (open_return == -EACCES) {
> + /*
> + * This happens if the paranoid value
> + * /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_paranoid is set to 2
> + * Re-run with exclude_kernel set; we don't do that
> + * by default as some ARM machines do not support it.
> + *
> + */
> + evsel->attr.exclude_kernel = 1;
> + ret = perf_evsel__open(evsel, NULL, &tmap.map) >= 0;
> + }
> perf_evsel__delete(evsel);
> }
>
>
Vince Weaver
[email protected]
http://www.eece.maine.edu/~vweaver/
Hi Vince,
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014 16:30:17 -0500 (EST), Vince Weaver wrote:
> just checking on the status of this patch. Am I sending it to the wrong
> place? Did it get lost in the post-holiday e-mail purges?
>
> The bug is annoying if you're trying to use perf on ARM systems.
Right, acme, would you please merge this?
Thanks,
Namhyung
>
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2013, Vince Weaver wrote:
>
>>
>> "perf list" listing of hardware events doesn't work on older ARM devices.
>> The change enabling event detection:
>>
>> commit b41f1cec91c37eeea6fdb15effbfa24ea0a5536b
>> Author: Namhyung Kim <[email protected]>
>> Date: Tue Aug 27 11:41:53 2013 +0900
>>
>> perf list: Skip unsupported events
>>
>>
>> uses the following code in tools/perf/util/parse-events.c:
>>
>> struct perf_event_attr attr = {
>> .type = type,
>> .config = config,
>> .disabled = 1,
>> .exclude_kernel = 1,
>> };
>>
>> On ARM machines pre-dating the Cortex-A15 this doesn't work, as
>> these machines don't support .exclude_kernel. So starting with 3.12
>> "perf list" does not report any hardware events at all on older
>> machines (seen on Rasp-Pi, Pandaboard, Beagleboard, etc).
>>
>> This version of the patch makes changes suggested by Namhyung Kim
>> to check for EACCESS and retry (instead of just dropping
>> the exclude_kernel) so we can properly handle machines where
>> /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_paranoid is set to 2.
>>
>> Reported-by: Chad Paradis <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Vince Weaver <[email protected]>
>> Acked-by: Namhyung Kim <[email protected]>
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/parse-events.c b/tools/perf/util/parse-events.c
>> index 6de6f89..1fa98b9 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/util/parse-events.c
>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/parse-events.c
>> @@ -1082,12 +1082,12 @@ int is_valid_tracepoint(const char *event_string)
>> static bool is_event_supported(u8 type, unsigned config)
>> {
>> bool ret = true;
>> + int open_return;
>> struct perf_evsel *evsel;
>> struct perf_event_attr attr = {
>> .type = type,
>> .config = config,
>> .disabled = 1,
>> - .exclude_kernel = 1,
>> };
>> struct {
>> struct thread_map map;
>> @@ -1099,7 +1099,20 @@ static bool is_event_supported(u8 type, unsigned config)
>>
>> evsel = perf_evsel__new(&attr);
>> if (evsel) {
>> - ret = perf_evsel__open(evsel, NULL, &tmap.map) >= 0;
>> + open_return = perf_evsel__open(evsel, NULL, &tmap.map);
>> + ret = open_return >= 0;
>> +
>> + if (open_return == -EACCES) {
>> + /*
>> + * This happens if the paranoid value
>> + * /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_paranoid is set to 2
>> + * Re-run with exclude_kernel set; we don't do that
>> + * by default as some ARM machines do not support it.
>> + *
>> + */
>> + evsel->attr.exclude_kernel = 1;
>> + ret = perf_evsel__open(evsel, NULL, &tmap.map) >= 0;
>> + }
>> perf_evsel__delete(evsel);
>> }
>>
>>
>
> Vince Weaver
> [email protected]
> http://www.eece.maine.edu/~vweaver/
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 04:30:17PM -0500, Vince Weaver wrote:
>
> just checking on the status of this patch. Am I sending it to the wrong
> place? Did it get lost in the post-holiday e-mail purges?
>
> The bug is annoying if you're trying to use perf on ARM systems.
Its for acme and he seems on the Cc, I suppose you got stuck in the
holiday backlog.
Em Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 05:17:27PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> Hi Vince,
>
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2014 16:30:17 -0500 (EST), Vince Weaver wrote:
> > just checking on the status of this patch. Am I sending it to the wrong
> > place? Did it get lost in the post-holiday e-mail purges?
> >
> > The bug is annoying if you're trying to use perf on ARM systems.
>
> Right, acme, would you please merge this?
I will, but having a patch authored by someone and Acked-by that same
person looks weird, so, to clarify, this was written by Vince, acked by
you, right?
- Arnaldo
> Thanks,
> Namhyung
>
> >
> > On Mon, 30 Dec 2013, Vince Weaver wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "perf list" listing of hardware events doesn't work on older ARM devices.
> >> The change enabling event detection:
> >>
> >> commit b41f1cec91c37eeea6fdb15effbfa24ea0a5536b
> >> Author: Namhyung Kim <[email protected]>
> >> Date: Tue Aug 27 11:41:53 2013 +0900
> >>
> >> perf list: Skip unsupported events
> >>
> >>
> >> uses the following code in tools/perf/util/parse-events.c:
> >>
> >> struct perf_event_attr attr = {
> >> .type = type,
> >> .config = config,
> >> .disabled = 1,
> >> .exclude_kernel = 1,
> >> };
> >>
> >> On ARM machines pre-dating the Cortex-A15 this doesn't work, as
> >> these machines don't support .exclude_kernel. So starting with 3.12
> >> "perf list" does not report any hardware events at all on older
> >> machines (seen on Rasp-Pi, Pandaboard, Beagleboard, etc).
> >>
> >> This version of the patch makes changes suggested by Namhyung Kim
> >> to check for EACCESS and retry (instead of just dropping
> >> the exclude_kernel) so we can properly handle machines where
> >> /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_paranoid is set to 2.
> >>
> >> Reported-by: Chad Paradis <[email protected]>
> >> Signed-off-by: Vince Weaver <[email protected]>
> >> Acked-by: Namhyung Kim <[email protected]>
> >>
> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/parse-events.c b/tools/perf/util/parse-events.c
> >> index 6de6f89..1fa98b9 100644
> >> --- a/tools/perf/util/parse-events.c
> >> +++ b/tools/perf/util/parse-events.c
> >> @@ -1082,12 +1082,12 @@ int is_valid_tracepoint(const char *event_string)
> >> static bool is_event_supported(u8 type, unsigned config)
> >> {
> >> bool ret = true;
> >> + int open_return;
> >> struct perf_evsel *evsel;
> >> struct perf_event_attr attr = {
> >> .type = type,
> >> .config = config,
> >> .disabled = 1,
> >> - .exclude_kernel = 1,
> >> };
> >> struct {
> >> struct thread_map map;
> >> @@ -1099,7 +1099,20 @@ static bool is_event_supported(u8 type, unsigned config)
> >>
> >> evsel = perf_evsel__new(&attr);
> >> if (evsel) {
> >> - ret = perf_evsel__open(evsel, NULL, &tmap.map) >= 0;
> >> + open_return = perf_evsel__open(evsel, NULL, &tmap.map);
> >> + ret = open_return >= 0;
> >> +
> >> + if (open_return == -EACCES) {
> >> + /*
> >> + * This happens if the paranoid value
> >> + * /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_paranoid is set to 2
> >> + * Re-run with exclude_kernel set; we don't do that
> >> + * by default as some ARM machines do not support it.
> >> + *
> >> + */
> >> + evsel->attr.exclude_kernel = 1;
> >> + ret = perf_evsel__open(evsel, NULL, &tmap.map) >= 0;
> >> + }
> >> perf_evsel__delete(evsel);
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Vince Weaver
> > [email protected]
> > http://www.eece.maine.edu/~vweaver/
2014-01-09 (목), 09:12 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo:
> Em Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 05:17:27PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> > Hi Vince,
> >
> > On Wed, 8 Jan 2014 16:30:17 -0500 (EST), Vince Weaver wrote:
> > > just checking on the status of this patch. Am I sending it to the wrong
> > > place? Did it get lost in the post-holiday e-mail purges?
> > >
> > > The bug is annoying if you're trying to use perf on ARM systems.
> >
> > Right, acme, would you please merge this?
>
> I will, but having a patch authored by someone and Acked-by that same
> person looks weird, so, to clarify, this was written by Vince, acked by
> you, right?
You seemed to be confused - it's not authored by me. He was just
referring a problematic commit b41f1cec91c3 which was written by me. So
yeah, this commit was written by Vince.
Thanks,
Namhyung
Em Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 09:37:03PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> 2014-01-09 (목), 09:12 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo:
> > Em Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 05:17:27PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> > > Hi Vince,
> > >
> > > On Wed, 8 Jan 2014 16:30:17 -0500 (EST), Vince Weaver wrote:
> > > > just checking on the status of this patch. Am I sending it to the wrong
> > > > place? Did it get lost in the post-holiday e-mail purges?
> > > >
> > > > The bug is annoying if you're trying to use perf on ARM systems.
> > >
> > > Right, acme, would you please merge this?
> >
> > I will, but having a patch authored by someone and Acked-by that same
> > person looks weird, so, to clarify, this was written by Vince, acked by
> > you, right?
>
> You seemed to be confused - it's not authored by me. He was just
> referring a problematic commit b41f1cec91c3 which was written by me. So
> yeah, this commit was written by Vince.
You are right, I saw that Author: line in the changeset comment, close
to the start of the message and got confused, thanks for clarifying.
- Arnaldo
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 09:37:03PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> > 2014-01-09 (목), 09:12 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo:
> > > Em Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 05:17:27PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> > > > Hi Vince,
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 8 Jan 2014 16:30:17 -0500 (EST), Vince Weaver wrote:
> > > > > just checking on the status of this patch. Am I sending it to the wrong
> > > > > place? Did it get lost in the post-holiday e-mail purges?
> > > > >
> > > > > The bug is annoying if you're trying to use perf on ARM systems.
> > > >
> > > > Right, acme, would you please merge this?
> > >
> > > I will, but having a patch authored by someone and Acked-by that same
> > > person looks weird, so, to clarify, this was written by Vince, acked by
> > > you, right?
> >
> > You seemed to be confused - it's not authored by me. He was just
> > referring a problematic commit b41f1cec91c3 which was written by me. So
> > yeah, this commit was written by Vince.
>
> You are right, I saw that Author: line in the changeset comment, close
> to the start of the message and got confused, thanks for clarifying.
Do I need to re-send this patch? It still applies cleanly to 3.14-rc1.
Vince
Em Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 03:34:42PM -0500, Vince Weaver escreveu:
> > You are right, I saw that Author: line in the changeset comment, close
> > to the start of the message and got confused, thanks for clarifying.
>
> Do I need to re-send this patch? It still applies cleanly to 3.14-rc1.
Sorry, picked it up now, will send it to Ingo today.
- Arnaldo