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:   Tue, 6 Jun 2023 08:46:48 +0800
From:   Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
To:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
Cc:     James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>, coresight@lists.linaro.org,
        denik@chromium.org, Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Mike Leach <mike.leach@linaro.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] perf cs-etm: Track exception level
Message-ID: <20230606004648.GB18315@leoy-huanghe>
References: <20230524131958.2139331-1-james.clark@arm.com>
 <ZH47LeSnwY2uKs//@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZH47LeSnwY2uKs//@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Arnaldo,

On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 04:44:45PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Wed, May 24, 2023 at 02:19:54PM +0100, James Clark escreveu:
> > Some fixes to support an issue reported by Denis Nikitin where decoding
> > trace that contains different EL1 and EL2 kernels can crash or go into
> > an infinite loop because the wrong kernel maps are used for the decode.
> > 
> > This still doesn't support distinguishing guest and host userspace,
> > we'd still have to fix the timestamps and do a bit more work to
> > correlate that. And I've removed PERF_RECORD_MISC_HYPERVISOR as a
> > possible outcome of cs_etm__cpu_mode(). As far as I know this could
> > never have been returned anyway because machine__is_host(machine) was
> > always true due to session.machines.host being hard coded. And I'm not
> > sure of the relevance of the difference between PERF_RECORD_MISC_KERNEL
> > and PERF_RECORD_MISC_HYPERVISOR in this scenario.
> > 
> > The first commit is a tidy up, second fixes a bug that I found when
> > comparing the exception level and thread of branch records, the third
> > is the main fix, and the last commit is some extra error checking. 
> > 
> > Applies to acme/perf-tools (4e111f0cf0)
> 
> So there seems to be agreement the first two patches can be applied? May
> I go ahead and do that now?

Could you pick up the first patch in this series?

I would like ask James to refine a bit for the second patch.

Thanks,
Leo