Hi Arnaldo,
On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 01:16, Leo Yan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> This patch set is to enable Arm arch timer counter and Arm SPE is the
> first customer to use arch timer counter for its timestamp.
>
> Patches 01 ~ 03 enables Arm arch timer counter in Perf tool; patch 01 is
> to retrieve arch timer's parameters from mmaped page; patch 02 provides
> APIs for the conversion between arch timer's counter and time; patch 03
> adds a test for patches 01 and 02.
>
> As the first customer to use Arm arch timer counter in perf tool, patch
> 04 is to generate sample's timestamp for ARM SPE AUX trace data.
>
> This patch set has been rebased on perf/core branch with the latest
> commit c4735d990268 ("perf evsel: Don't set
> sample_regs_intr/sample_regs_user for dummy event").
The ARM SPE perf tools code is orphan and I don't have the cycles to
pick it up. Leo has spent a lot of time in that code and as such I
suggest that he starts maintaining it, probably following the same
kind of arrangement you and I have for coresight.
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
> After changes:
>
> # perf test 67 -v
> 67: Convert perf time to arch timer counter
> --- start ---
> test child forked, pid 5463
> mmap size 528384B
> 1st event perf time 2231755083020 arch timer cnt 113097053477
> test time 2231755087460 arch timer cnt 113097053699
> 2nd event perf time 2231755090680 arch timer cnt 113097053860
> test child finished with 0
> ---- end ----
>
> Reports the SPE sample with timestamp:
>
> $ perf script -F,+time
> dd 6799 [034] 25496.733475: 1 l1d-access: ffff87f37b88 _dl_start+0x288 (/usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/ld-2.28.so)
> dd 6799 [034] 25496.733475: 1 tlb-access: ffff87f37b88 _dl_start+0x288 (/usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/ld-2.28.so)
> dd 6799 [034] 25496.733479: 1 l1d-access: ffff87f37c74 _dl_start+0x374 (/usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/ld-2.28.so)
> dd 6799 [034] 25496.733479: 1 tlb-access: ffff87f37c74 _dl_start+0x374 (/usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/ld-2.28.so)
> dd 6799 [034] 25496.733485: 1 l1d-access: ffff87f49af4 __GI___tunables_init+0x3c (/usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/ld-2.28.so)
> dd 6799 [034] 25496.733485: 1 tlb-access: ffff87f49af4 __GI___tunables_init+0x3c (/usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/ld-2.28.so)
>
> Changes from v1:
> * Rebased on the latest perf/core branch;
> * Added a testing for Arm timer counter conversion (Ian Rogers).
>
>
> Leo Yan (4):
> perf tools: Support Arm arch timer counter
> perf arm_arch_timer: Convert between counter and timestamp
> perf arm_arch_timer: Test conversion between counter and timestamp
> perf arm-spe: Enable timestamp with arch timer counter
>
> tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/arch-tests.h | 6 +
> tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/Build | 1 +
> tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/arch-tests.c | 4 +
> .../tests/perf-time-to-arch-timer-counter.c | 189 ++++++++++++++++++
> tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/Build | 1 +
> tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/arch_timer.c | 50 +++++
> tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/arm-spe.c | 17 ++
> tools/perf/util/Build | 1 +
> tools/perf/util/arm-spe.c | 16 +-
> tools/perf/util/arm-spe.h | 5 +
> tools/perf/util/arm_arch_timer.c | 28 +++
> tools/perf/util/arm_arch_timer.h | 23 +++
> 12 files changed, 339 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/perf-time-to-arch-timer-counter.c
> create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/arch_timer.c
> create mode 100644 tools/perf/util/arm_arch_timer.c
> create mode 100644 tools/perf/util/arm_arch_timer.h
>
> --
> 2.17.1
>
Em Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 10:06:53AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier escreveu:
> Hi Arnaldo,
>
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 01:16, Leo Yan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > This patch set is to enable Arm arch timer counter and Arm SPE is the
> > first customer to use arch timer counter for its timestamp.
> >
> > Patches 01 ~ 03 enables Arm arch timer counter in Perf tool; patch 01 is
> > to retrieve arch timer's parameters from mmaped page; patch 02 provides
> > APIs for the conversion between arch timer's counter and time; patch 03
> > adds a test for patches 01 and 02.
> >
> > As the first customer to use Arm arch timer counter in perf tool, patch
> > 04 is to generate sample's timestamp for ARM SPE AUX trace data.
> >
> > This patch set has been rebased on perf/core branch with the latest
> > commit c4735d990268 ("perf evsel: Don't set
> > sample_regs_intr/sample_regs_user for dummy event").
>
> The ARM SPE perf tools code is orphan and I don't have the cycles to
> pick it up. Leo has spent a lot of time in that code and as such I
> suggest that he starts maintaining it, probably following the same
> kind of arrangement you and I have for coresight.
Thats ok with me, I think we should reflect that on the MAINTAINERS
file, right?
We have this already:
PERFORMANCE EVENTS SUBSYSTEM ARM64 PMU EVENTS
R: John Garry <[email protected]>
R: Will Deacon <[email protected]>
L: [email protected] (moderated for non-subscribers)
S: Supported
F: tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/arm64/
I think we should have entries for CoreSight and ARM SPE, one listing
you as the maintainer and the other listing Leo, right?
Leo, it would be good for you to try and find someone at your
organization or elsewhere that could help with this, this way I would
wait a bit, see if someone else Acks it, and collect those, processing
it from you after a while if nobody chimes in.
Please continue providing 'perf test' regression tests, etc, to help
with maintaining this code being checked.
- Arnaldo
> Thanks,
> Mathieu
>
> >
> > After changes:
> >
> > # perf test 67 -v
> > 67: Convert perf time to arch timer counter
> > --- start ---
> > test child forked, pid 5463
> > mmap size 528384B
> > 1st event perf time 2231755083020 arch timer cnt 113097053477
> > test time 2231755087460 arch timer cnt 113097053699
> > 2nd event perf time 2231755090680 arch timer cnt 113097053860
> > test child finished with 0
> > ---- end ----
> >
> > Reports the SPE sample with timestamp:
> >
> > $ perf script -F,+time
> > dd 6799 [034] 25496.733475: 1 l1d-access: ffff87f37b88 _dl_start+0x288 (/usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/ld-2.28.so)
> > dd 6799 [034] 25496.733475: 1 tlb-access: ffff87f37b88 _dl_start+0x288 (/usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/ld-2.28.so)
> > dd 6799 [034] 25496.733479: 1 l1d-access: ffff87f37c74 _dl_start+0x374 (/usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/ld-2.28.so)
> > dd 6799 [034] 25496.733479: 1 tlb-access: ffff87f37c74 _dl_start+0x374 (/usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/ld-2.28.so)
> > dd 6799 [034] 25496.733485: 1 l1d-access: ffff87f49af4 __GI___tunables_init+0x3c (/usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/ld-2.28.so)
> > dd 6799 [034] 25496.733485: 1 tlb-access: ffff87f49af4 __GI___tunables_init+0x3c (/usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/ld-2.28.so)
> >
> > Changes from v1:
> > * Rebased on the latest perf/core branch;
> > * Added a testing for Arm timer counter conversion (Ian Rogers).
> >
> >
> > Leo Yan (4):
> > perf tools: Support Arm arch timer counter
> > perf arm_arch_timer: Convert between counter and timestamp
> > perf arm_arch_timer: Test conversion between counter and timestamp
> > perf arm-spe: Enable timestamp with arch timer counter
> >
> > tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/arch-tests.h | 6 +
> > tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/Build | 1 +
> > tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/arch-tests.c | 4 +
> > .../tests/perf-time-to-arch-timer-counter.c | 189 ++++++++++++++++++
> > tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/Build | 1 +
> > tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/arch_timer.c | 50 +++++
> > tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/arm-spe.c | 17 ++
> > tools/perf/util/Build | 1 +
> > tools/perf/util/arm-spe.c | 16 +-
> > tools/perf/util/arm-spe.h | 5 +
> > tools/perf/util/arm_arch_timer.c | 28 +++
> > tools/perf/util/arm_arch_timer.h | 23 +++
> > 12 files changed, 339 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/perf-time-to-arch-timer-counter.c
> > create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/arch_timer.c
> > create mode 100644 tools/perf/util/arm_arch_timer.c
> > create mode 100644 tools/perf/util/arm_arch_timer.h
> >
> > --
> > 2.17.1
> >
--
- Arnaldo
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 03:53:34PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 10:06:53AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier escreveu:
> > On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 01:16, Leo Yan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > This patch set is to enable Arm arch timer counter and Arm SPE is the
> > > first customer to use arch timer counter for its timestamp.
> > >
> > > Patches 01 ~ 03 enables Arm arch timer counter in Perf tool; patch 01 is
> > > to retrieve arch timer's parameters from mmaped page; patch 02 provides
> > > APIs for the conversion between arch timer's counter and time; patch 03
> > > adds a test for patches 01 and 02.
> > >
> > > As the first customer to use Arm arch timer counter in perf tool, patch
> > > 04 is to generate sample's timestamp for ARM SPE AUX trace data.
> > >
> > > This patch set has been rebased on perf/core branch with the latest
> > > commit c4735d990268 ("perf evsel: Don't set
> > > sample_regs_intr/sample_regs_user for dummy event").
> >
> > The ARM SPE perf tools code is orphan and I don't have the cycles to
> > pick it up. Leo has spent a lot of time in that code and as such I
> > suggest that he starts maintaining it, probably following the same
> > kind of arrangement you and I have for coresight.
>
> Thats ok with me, I think we should reflect that on the MAINTAINERS
> file, right?
>
> We have this already:
>
> PERFORMANCE EVENTS SUBSYSTEM ARM64 PMU EVENTS
> R: John Garry <[email protected]>
> R: Will Deacon <[email protected]>
> L: [email protected] (moderated for non-subscribers)
> S: Supported
> F: tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/arm64/
>
> I think we should have entries for CoreSight and ARM SPE, one listing
> you as the maintainer and the other listing Leo, right?
Fine by me. I'll continue to maintain the in-kernel SPE driver, but I'd love
to see somebody step up to looking after the userspace code. It's seriously
unloved on arm64 :(
I'd even be happy to see one or two M: entries added for
tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/arm64/. I realistically don't have the time to
take that on, but I'd be thrilled if any/all of John, Mathieu and Leo were
to be listed there if they are willing to do so and can spare the time to
look after it. Even just silly things like making sure the thing
cross-compiles have been broken in the recent past, so it's not necessarily
about handling huge amounts of incoming patches.
In other words, rather than slice up the arm64 parts of the perf tool, I'd
argue in favour of a joint maintainership model for all the arm64 bits, if
we have a few willing volunteers.
Will
[ Adding John, as I only just realised he wasn't on CC and we were talking
about him! ]
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:59:01AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 03:53:34PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 10:06:53AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier escreveu:
> > > The ARM SPE perf tools code is orphan and I don't have the cycles to
> > > pick it up. Leo has spent a lot of time in that code and as such I
> > > suggest that he starts maintaining it, probably following the same
> > > kind of arrangement you and I have for coresight.
> >
> > Thats ok with me, I think we should reflect that on the MAINTAINERS
> > file, right?
> >
> > We have this already:
> >
> > PERFORMANCE EVENTS SUBSYSTEM ARM64 PMU EVENTS
> > R: John Garry <[email protected]>
> > R: Will Deacon <[email protected]>
> > L: [email protected] (moderated for non-subscribers)
> > S: Supported
> > F: tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/arm64/
> >
> > I think we should have entries for CoreSight and ARM SPE, one listing
> > you as the maintainer and the other listing Leo, right?
>
> Fine by me. I'll continue to maintain the in-kernel SPE driver, but I'd love
> to see somebody step up to looking after the userspace code. It's seriously
> unloved on arm64 :(
>
> I'd even be happy to see one or two M: entries added for
> tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/arm64/. I realistically don't have the time to
> take that on, but I'd be thrilled if any/all of John, Mathieu and Leo were
> to be listed there if they are willing to do so and can spare the time to
> look after it. Even just silly things like making sure the thing
> cross-compiles have been broken in the recent past, so it's not necessarily
> about handling huge amounts of incoming patches.
>
> In other words, rather than slice up the arm64 parts of the perf tool, I'd
> argue in favour of a joint maintainership model for all the arm64 bits, if
> we have a few willing volunteers.
>
> Will
On 13/08/2020 12:18, Will Deacon wrote:
> [ Adding John, as I only just realised he wasn't on CC and we were talking
> about him! ]
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:59:01AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 03:53:34PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>> Em Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 10:06:53AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier escreveu:
>>>> The ARM SPE perf tools code is orphan and I don't have the cycles to
>>>> pick it up. Leo has spent a lot of time in that code and as such I
>>>> suggest that he starts maintaining it, probably following the same
>>>> kind of arrangement you and I have for coresight.
>>>
>>> Thats ok with me, I think we should reflect that on the MAINTAINERS
>>> file, right?
>>>
>>> We have this already:
>>>
>>> PERFORMANCE EVENTS SUBSYSTEM ARM64 PMU EVENTS
>>> R: John Garry <[email protected]>
>>> R: Will Deacon <[email protected]>
>>> L: [email protected] (moderated for non-subscribers)
>>> S: Supported
>>> F: tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/arm64/
>>>
>>> I think we should have entries for CoreSight and ARM SPE, one listing
>>> you as the maintainer and the other listing Leo, right?
>>
>> Fine by me. I'll continue to maintain the in-kernel SPE driver, but I'd love
>> to see somebody step up to looking after the userspace code. It's seriously
>> unloved on arm64 :(
>>
>> I'd even be happy to see one or two M: entries added for
>> tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/arm64/. I realistically don't have the time to
>> take that on, but I'd be thrilled if any/all of John, Mathieu and Leo were
>> to be listed there if they are willing to do so and can spare the time to
>> look after it. Even just silly things like making sure the thing
>> cross-compiles have been broken in the recent past, so it's not necessarily
>> about handling huge amounts of incoming patches.
>>
>> In other words, rather than slice up the arm64 parts of the perf tool, I'd
>> argue in favour of a joint maintainership model for all the arm64 bits, if
>> we have a few willing volunteers.
Right, it makes sense not to chop up too much, so happy to see
"PERFORMANCE EVENTS SUBSYSTEM ARM64 PMU EVENTS" expanded in terms of
scope and membership.
Em Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 01:08:02PM +0100, John Garry escreveu:
> On 13/08/2020 12:18, Will Deacon wrote:
> > [ Adding John, as I only just realised he wasn't on CC and we were talking
> > about him! ]
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:59:01AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 03:53:34PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > > Em Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 10:06:53AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier escreveu:
> > > > > The ARM SPE perf tools code is orphan and I don't have the cycles to
> > > > > pick it up. Leo has spent a lot of time in that code and as such I
> > > > > suggest that he starts maintaining it, probably following the same
> > > > > kind of arrangement you and I have for coresight.
> > > >
> > > > Thats ok with me, I think we should reflect that on the MAINTAINERS
> > > > file, right?
> > > >
> > > > We have this already:
> > > >
> > > > PERFORMANCE EVENTS SUBSYSTEM ARM64 PMU EVENTS
> > > > R: John Garry <[email protected]>
> > > > R: Will Deacon <[email protected]>
> > > > L: [email protected] (moderated for non-subscribers)
> > > > S: Supported
> > > > F: tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/arm64/
> > > >
> > > > I think we should have entries for CoreSight and ARM SPE, one listing
> > > > you as the maintainer and the other listing Leo, right?
> > >
> > > Fine by me. I'll continue to maintain the in-kernel SPE driver, but I'd love
> > > to see somebody step up to looking after the userspace code. It's seriously
> > > unloved on arm64 :(
> > >
> > > I'd even be happy to see one or two M: entries added for
> > > tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/arm64/. I realistically don't have the time to
> > > take that on, but I'd be thrilled if any/all of John, Mathieu and Leo were
> > > to be listed there if they are willing to do so and can spare the time to
> > > look after it. Even just silly things like making sure the thing
> > > cross-compiles have been broken in the recent past, so it's not necessarily
> > > about handling huge amounts of incoming patches.
> > >
> > > In other words, rather than slice up the arm64 parts of the perf tool, I'd
> > > argue in favour of a joint maintainership model for all the arm64 bits, if
> > > we have a few willing volunteers.
>
> Right, it makes sense not to chop up too much, so happy to see "PERFORMANCE
> EVENTS SUBSYSTEM ARM64 PMU EVENTS" expanded in terms of scope and
> membership.
Discuss this as long as you need and then send me a patch for the
MAINTAINERS file with your conclusion.
Great to see this happening,
- Arnaldo
On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 12:53, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Em Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 10:06:53AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier escreveu:
> > Hi Arnaldo,
> >
> > On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 01:16, Leo Yan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > This patch set is to enable Arm arch timer counter and Arm SPE is the
> > > first customer to use arch timer counter for its timestamp.
> > >
> > > Patches 01 ~ 03 enables Arm arch timer counter in Perf tool; patch 01 is
> > > to retrieve arch timer's parameters from mmaped page; patch 02 provides
> > > APIs for the conversion between arch timer's counter and time; patch 03
> > > adds a test for patches 01 and 02.
> > >
> > > As the first customer to use Arm arch timer counter in perf tool, patch
> > > 04 is to generate sample's timestamp for ARM SPE AUX trace data.
> > >
> > > This patch set has been rebased on perf/core branch with the latest
> > > commit c4735d990268 ("perf evsel: Don't set
> > > sample_regs_intr/sample_regs_user for dummy event").
> >
> > The ARM SPE perf tools code is orphan and I don't have the cycles to
> > pick it up. Leo has spent a lot of time in that code and as such I
> > suggest that he starts maintaining it, probably following the same
> > kind of arrangement you and I have for coresight.
>
> Thats ok with me, I think we should reflect that on the MAINTAINERS
> file, right?
>
I agree, it is time to sort out this part.
> We have this already:
>
> PERFORMANCE EVENTS SUBSYSTEM ARM64 PMU EVENTS
> R: John Garry <[email protected]>
> R: Will Deacon <[email protected]>
> L: [email protected] (moderated for non-subscribers)
> S: Supported
> F: tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/arm64/
>
> I think we should have entries for CoreSight and ARM SPE, one listing
> you as the maintainer and the other listing Leo, right?
>
Yes - I'll send you a patch for that once v5.9-rc1 comes out (unless
you want it now).
> Leo, it would be good for you to try and find someone at your
> organization or elsewhere that could help with this, this way I would
> wait a bit, see if someone else Acks it, and collect those, processing
> it from you after a while if nobody chimes in.
>
Right, the same kind of arrangement you and I have for coresight. So
far this has worked quite well and I don't see a need to proceed
differently.
> Please continue providing 'perf test' regression tests, etc, to help
> with maintaining this code being checked.
Those are quite useful.
>
> - Arnaldo
>
> > Thanks,
> > Mathieu
> >
> > >
> > > After changes:
> > >
> > > # perf test 67 -v
> > > 67: Convert perf time to arch timer counter
> > > --- start ---
> > > test child forked, pid 5463
> > > mmap size 528384B
> > > 1st event perf time 2231755083020 arch timer cnt 113097053477
> > > test time 2231755087460 arch timer cnt 113097053699
> > > 2nd event perf time 2231755090680 arch timer cnt 113097053860
> > > test child finished with 0
> > > ---- end ----
> > >
> > > Reports the SPE sample with timestamp:
> > >
> > > $ perf script -F,+time
> > > dd 6799 [034] 25496.733475: 1 l1d-access: ffff87f37b88 _dl_start+0x288 (/usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/ld-2.28.so)
> > > dd 6799 [034] 25496.733475: 1 tlb-access: ffff87f37b88 _dl_start+0x288 (/usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/ld-2.28.so)
> > > dd 6799 [034] 25496.733479: 1 l1d-access: ffff87f37c74 _dl_start+0x374 (/usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/ld-2.28.so)
> > > dd 6799 [034] 25496.733479: 1 tlb-access: ffff87f37c74 _dl_start+0x374 (/usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/ld-2.28.so)
> > > dd 6799 [034] 25496.733485: 1 l1d-access: ffff87f49af4 __GI___tunables_init+0x3c (/usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/ld-2.28.so)
> > > dd 6799 [034] 25496.733485: 1 tlb-access: ffff87f49af4 __GI___tunables_init+0x3c (/usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/ld-2.28.so)
> > >
> > > Changes from v1:
> > > * Rebased on the latest perf/core branch;
> > > * Added a testing for Arm timer counter conversion (Ian Rogers).
> > >
> > >
> > > Leo Yan (4):
> > > perf tools: Support Arm arch timer counter
> > > perf arm_arch_timer: Convert between counter and timestamp
> > > perf arm_arch_timer: Test conversion between counter and timestamp
> > > perf arm-spe: Enable timestamp with arch timer counter
> > >
> > > tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/arch-tests.h | 6 +
> > > tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/Build | 1 +
> > > tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/arch-tests.c | 4 +
> > > .../tests/perf-time-to-arch-timer-counter.c | 189 ++++++++++++++++++
> > > tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/Build | 1 +
> > > tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/arch_timer.c | 50 +++++
> > > tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/arm-spe.c | 17 ++
> > > tools/perf/util/Build | 1 +
> > > tools/perf/util/arm-spe.c | 16 +-
> > > tools/perf/util/arm-spe.h | 5 +
> > > tools/perf/util/arm_arch_timer.c | 28 +++
> > > tools/perf/util/arm_arch_timer.h | 23 +++
> > > 12 files changed, 339 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/perf-time-to-arch-timer-counter.c
> > > create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/arch_timer.c
> > > create mode 100644 tools/perf/util/arm_arch_timer.c
> > > create mode 100644 tools/perf/util/arm_arch_timer.h
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.17.1
> > >
>
> --
>
> - Arnaldo