Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 21 Sep 2020 14:59:52 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To:     Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        mark.rutland@arm.com, maz@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        swboyd@chromium.org, sumit.garg@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/7] arm_pmu: Use NMI for perf interrupt
Message-ID: <20200921135951.GN2139@willie-the-truck>
References: <20200819133419.526889-1-alexandru.elisei@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200819133419.526889-1-alexandru.elisei@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 02:34:12PM +0100, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> The series makes the arm_pmu driver use NMIs for the perf interrupt when
> NMIs are available on the platform (currently, only arm64 + GICv3). To make
> it easier to play with the patches, I've pushed a branch at [1]:

This mostly looks good to me, but see some of the comments I left on the
code. One other thing I'm not sure about is whether or not we should tell
userspace that we're using an NMI for the sampling. Do any other
architectures have a conditional NMI?

Will