Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 17:36:46 +0200
From: Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@caviumnetworks.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] Cavium ThunderX uncore PMU support
Message-ID: <20161028153646.GA11371@hardcore>
References: <1476955841-27898-1-git-send-email-jglauber@cavium.com>
 <20161020103707.GB3175@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20161020112351.GC13708@hardcore>
 <20161028151749.GG14402@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161028151749.GG14402@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Oct 2016 15:36:58.5892 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN3PR07MB2578
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1512
Lines: 32

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 04:17:49PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 01:23:51PM +0200, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:37:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:30:36AM +0200, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > > > Note:
> > > > I'm using perf_sw_context in difference to perf_invalid_context
> > > > (see WARN_ON in perf_pmu_register). Reason is that with perf_invalid_context
> > > > add() is never called and the counter results are shown as "unsupported" by
> > > > perf. With perf_sw_context everything works as expected.
> > > 
> > > What?! All the uncore PMUs use perf_invalid_context. What doesn't work
> > > for you?
> > 
> > OK, so using perf_invalid_context and "-a" seems to work.
> > 
> > But I must say that I hate that from a user perspective. The user needs to know about
> > the type of PMU behind the event and then provide "-a" or get a "<not supported"
> > as counter value?
> 
> Sure, but in the interest of getting *something* merged, can we start
> off using perf_invalid_context and then have the discussion about whether
> or not this can be extended later on, please? If your PMU is a shared
> resource amongst CPUs, it maybe that all you want is a better error
> message from the perf tool (but again, this can come later!).

If that is the only obstacle I can repost with perf_sw_context (or do a
follow-up patch). After all it works, it is just "clueless" people like
me that are not aware of the required switches.

--Jan

> Will