On 25/10/2026 06:38, Amir Ayupov wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2026 22:09:35 -0300 Daniel Pereira danielmaraboo@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 04:05:23PM -0700, Amir Ayupov wrote: [...]
- perf record -T \
- -e cs_etm/pmu_pulse,aux-action=start-paused,timestamp/u \
- -e armv8_pmuv3_0/cpu_cycles,aux-action=resume,period=1050031/u \
- -e armv8_pmuv3_0/trcextout1,aux-action=pause,period=1000,call-graph=fp/u \
- -- ./workload
The CPU PMU name depends on the system: armv8_pmuv3_0 is what ACPI systems get, while on devicetree systems it comes from the compatible string, e.g. armv8_pmuv3 or armv8_cortex_a76. Maybe add a sentence after the example, along the lines of:
The CPU PMU name depends on the system; the available PMUs are listed under /sys/bus/event_source/devices/.
I'd rather drop PMU specifiers as this is not something this patch series focuses on, and examples above avoid them too.
I agree. Making the docs overly verbose makes them less useful. And I can't see a use case where a user would get stuck converting this example to their own system.
I applied the documentation hunks and built htmldocs, no new warnings. With or without the above, for the documentation part:
Reviewed-by: Daniel Pereira danielmaraboo@gmail.com
Thanks, Daniel
Sent using hkml (https://github.com/sjp38/hackermail)