Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 20 Apr 2022 16:23:11 +0800
From:   Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
To:     German Gomez <german.gomez@arm.com>
Cc:     Ali Saidi <alisaidi@amazon.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, acme@kernel.org,
        benh@kernel.crashing.org, Nick.Forrington@arm.com,
        alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, andrew.kilroy@arm.com,
        james.clark@arm.com, john.garry@huawei.com, jolsa@kernel.org,
        kjain@linux.ibm.com, lihuafei1@huawei.com, mark.rutland@arm.com,
        mathieu.poirier@linaro.org, mingo@redhat.com, namhyung@kernel.org,
        peterz@infradead.org, will@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] perf tools: sync addition of PERF_MEM_SNOOPX_PEER
Message-ID: <20220420082311.GB843168@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s>
References: <20220408195344.32764-1-alisaidi@amazon.com>
 <20220408195344.32764-4-alisaidi@amazon.com>
 <39448754-adf5-f1ba-25e7-8ee3d76f0159@arm.com>
 <47ec29fe-75ea-62ef-447b-1164569616de@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <47ec29fe-75ea-62ef-447b-1164569616de@arm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 03:35:52PM +0100, German Gomez wrote:
> 
> On 11/04/2022 11:26, German Gomez wrote:
> > On 08/04/2022 20:53, Ali Saidi wrote:
> >> Add a flag to the perf mem data struct to signal that a request caused a
> >> cache-to-cache transfer of a line from a peer of the requestor and
> >> wasn't sourced from a lower cache level.  The line being moved from one
> >> peer cache to another has latency and performance implications. On Arm64
> >> Neoverse systems the data source can indicate a cache-to-cache transfer
> >> but not if the line is dirty or clean, so instead of overloading HITM
> >> define a new flag that indicates this type of transfer.
> > I think it's fine to merge this and the previous commit rather than have
> > two commits with the same msg.
> >
> 
> I take it back. It has been pointed out to me that having the separation
> is normal/ok. So my comment doesn't apply.

Yeah, it's good that we split these two patches since it's easier
for maintainer to pick up separately :)

Thanks,
Leo