Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:af89:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id iu9csp2966916pxb; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 09:08:43 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz0/FMSEYXTdQIZVchixubohBfNJJX2pMh3fkV0hAdBRBBJr6PL5NGkd5xIGTyL4Jo7LdLp X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:e7c4:: with SMTP id kb4mr35478959pjb.183.1642439323204; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 09:08:43 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1642439323; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=n4qmQCXNu3XaqTwhwbWSrGQjK6nsXAZS5gCTmw2DLZ0jcmgAGpwB+RBiuV4z3Wy64J 4C6mUt5QvseMJhLs7m5qvgd7I0gW31WhC8SmGGDJtY4h8+1gIOMjT5JEAtNYsZtUIm9B gZVgKnLFcbH6BC6zY0EuFLxzu1FKhw7konTK+/eWXTNr6bpd4iairyke4VfU4KtO8BYq N1/UTkMy4/DZER2PiC34LzPfOXiv4YBRJRbFEuKuw4+6ypwWrf3vt1Bhptu4XwPHnVAL QlUm0Klk/TRf8x/PIDiqjR+VHvTvPo5ipXdQYFSUMkAOe4hN2CvGhOJvmLoWt/I1gKs3 gAng== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-language:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date:message-id:from:references :cc:to:subject; bh=grPiLlS8Pq3ihLia99Yu2xutisKEVbpZk6K2rfe19Kk=; b=kEKfor7J5L36sVNOle1QeN37rE9mpDzV7une9nc5Jv3/HAA6C3eZTie5grELpjLzWR jxpsi2fVQPkAFBuwJG179/R9PBhAGCI++vuayJVNBkfGo9JcleAc+m2G8G9cSmrwbvh9 K4AasEBxeNWFgLZk/KZMeh1B2QtlyAMPB2pQMQlpbuu3C3ifaLOg8JxSFcuwsvWnylLe YZVzlY7Tw3IPWSrKmAsX4JyCPZKvhDyOPzDvqWcBC9L6IThz5so3UCLStt1EpR13U0oj AD3MnlRTE6BUSqeYWUimlYi2p/jEVKBQ63ld5Qm93fL/ardHFSTkoxuqkwZOQmGkpO/t mBzw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id oc16si4759332pjb.126.2022.01.17.09.08.31; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 09:08:43 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S238592AbiAQK1Y (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 17 Jan 2022 05:27:24 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:56264 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233639AbiAQK1X (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jan 2022 05:27:23 -0500 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0227A6D; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 02:27:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.57.36.133] (unknown [10.57.36.133]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 613943F73D; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 02:27:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf record/arm-spe: Override attr->sample_period for non-libpfm4 events To: James Clark , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org Cc: Chase Conklin , Mark Rutland , Alexander Shishkin , Jiri Olsa , Namhyung Kim , Martin KaFai Lau , Song Liu , Yonghong Song , John Fastabend , KP Singh , Ian Rogers , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Stephane Eranian , netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, "acme@kernel.org" References: <20220114212102.179209-1-german.gomez@arm.com> From: German Gomez Message-ID: <35a4f70f-d7ef-6e3c-dc79-aa09d87f0271@arm.com> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 10:27:11 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi James, On 17/01/2022 09:59, James Clark wrote: > > On 14/01/2022 21:21, German Gomez wrote: >> A previous commit preventing attr->sample_period values from being >> overridden in pfm events changed a related behaviour in arm_spe. >> >> Before this patch: >> perf record -c 10000 -e arm_spe_0// -- sleep 1 >> >> Would not yield an SPE event with period=10000, because the arm-spe code > Just to clarify, this seems like it should say "Would yield", not "Would not yield", > as in it was previously working? "this patch" refers to the patch I'm sending, not the one it's fixing. I might have to rewrite this to make it more clear. How about: === A previous patch preventing "attr->sample_period" values from being overridden in pfm events changed a related behaviour in arm-spe. Before said patch: perf record -c 10000 -e arm_spe_0// -- sleep 1 Would yield an SPE event with period=10000. After the patch, the period in "-c 10000" was being ignored because the arm-spe code initializes sample_period to a non-zero value. This patch restores the previous behaviour for non-libpfm4 events. === Thanks for the review, German