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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <36fcef74ba3d21250f4c9605e691d1e2dac20ebb.camel@maquefel.me> <IA1PR20MB4953FCC20C89F2659EB34896BB7F9@IA1PR20MB4953.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <IA1PR20MB4953FCC20C89F2659EB34896BB7F9@IA1PR20MB4953.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
From:   Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 23 Jun 2023 17:17:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM9d7cjtisDVPijfU=iEGxc0YF=RnAt+r18Jg+8Av-+RAO=jeg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] perf vendor events riscv: add T-HEAD C9xx JSON file
To:     Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@outlook.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        Nikita Shubin <n.shubin@yadro.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 2:50 AM Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> > licheerv # perf record
> > [  432.015618] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 26s!
> > [perf:117]
> > [  460.015617] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 52s!
> > [perf:117]
> > [  488.015616] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 78s!
> > [perf:117]
> > [  516.015617] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 104s!
> > [perf:117]
> >
> > But that's not related to your patch anyway.
>
> Same issue on c920, but it did not always occur.
> Like a sbi issue for T-HEAD cpus.
>
> > I am strongly against using "c9xx" wildcard, i would prefer declaring
> > them separate (especially taking in mind that c920 is c910 with vector
> > - AFAIK), but that's up to Arnaldo to decide.
>
> AFAIK, there is no reliable way to distinguish c906 and c910 cores. And
> the events of c910 and c920 are the same (according to the draft document
> of the c920).
>
> Anyway, I agree to let Arnaldo decide.
>
> > Tested-by: Nikita Shubin <n.shubin@yadro.com>

I'm collecting patches on behalf of Arnaldo this time.
It seems this patch was not picked up for a long time.

I think we can make changes for the c9xx wildcard later
if needed.  I'll process it in the current form.

Thanks,
Namhyung