On 20/04/2023 13:37, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
On 20-04-2023 06:00 pm, James Clark wrote:
On 20/04/2023 12:47, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
...
My patch is rebased on 6.3-RC7 codebase with Mike's 3 perf patches related to dynamic id [1] support(queued for 6.4).
"perf report -D" works for me.
I was referring to sparse CPU lists, which I think you mentioned above doesn't work even with this patch.
[1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-perf-users/msg27452.html
It should be based on the next branch here: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/coresight/linux.git
OK.
It need not be. Since this patch is purely perf tools patch and has nothing to do with the kernel drivers, it should be beased on whatever the tip of the perf tool tree is. Otherwise we risk rebasing to that eventually.
Cheers Suzuki
On 20/04/2023 14:03, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 20/04/2023 13:37, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
On 20-04-2023 06:00 pm, James Clark wrote:
On 20/04/2023 12:47, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
...
My patch is rebased on 6.3-RC7 codebase with Mike's 3 perf patches related to dynamic id [1] support(queued for 6.4).
"perf report -D" works for me.
I was referring to sparse CPU lists, which I think you mentioned above doesn't work even with this patch.
[1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-perf-users/msg27452.html
It should be based on the next branch here: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/coresight/linux.git
OK.
It need not be. Since this patch is purely perf tools patch and has nothing to do with the kernel drivers, it should be beased on whatever the tip of the perf tool tree is. Otherwise we risk rebasing to that eventually.
Cheers Suzuki
Good point, sorry for the confusion!
I wonder if we could have some kind of new staging branch that has both up to date perf and coresight changes at the same time? Either that would make things like this easier, or more complicated. I'm not sure.
I suppose I can DIY it quite easily but then everyone would have to as well.
James
Em Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 04:44:21PM +0100, James Clark escreveu:
On 20/04/2023 14:03, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 20/04/2023 13:37, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
On 20-04-2023 06:00 pm, James Clark wrote:
On 20/04/2023 12:47, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
My patch is rebased on 6.3-RC7 codebase with Mike's 3 perf patches related to dynamic id [1] support(queued for 6.4).
"perf report -D" works for me.
I was referring to sparse CPU lists, which I think you mentioned above doesn't work even with this patch.
[1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-perf-users/msg27452.html
It should be based on the next branch here: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/coresight/linux.git
OK.
It need not be. Since this patch is purely perf tools patch and has nothing to do with the kernel drivers, it should be beased on whatever the tip of the perf tool tree is. Otherwise we risk rebasing to that eventually.
Good point, sorry for the confusion!
I wonder if we could have some kind of new staging branch that has both up to date perf and coresight changes at the same time? Either that would make things like this easier, or more complicated. I'm not sure.
I suppose I can DIY it quite easily but then everyone would have to as well.
My two cents: It this was available together with a CI that would run 'perf test' + 'make -C tools/perf build-test' and any other set of tests, that would be great.
But not having it also has an advantage: no lockstep development, tooling should gracefully work with whatever is available.
I say this because it is a really common theme, even Debian had a packaging scheme that shoehorned (forcefully fused?) perf's and the kernel's version :-\
- Arnaldo
On 20/04/2023 16:44, James Clark wrote:
On 20/04/2023 14:03, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 20/04/2023 13:37, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
On 20-04-2023 06:00 pm, James Clark wrote:
On 20/04/2023 12:47, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
...
My patch is rebased on 6.3-RC7 codebase with Mike's 3 perf patches related to dynamic id [1] support(queued for 6.4).
"perf report -D" works for me.
I was referring to sparse CPU lists, which I think you mentioned above doesn't work even with this patch.
[1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-perf-users/msg27452.html
It should be based on the next branch here: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/coresight/linux.git
OK.
It need not be. Since this patch is purely perf tools patch and has nothing to do with the kernel drivers, it should be beased on whatever the tip of the perf tool tree is. Otherwise we risk rebasing to that eventually.
Cheers Suzuki
Good point, sorry for the confusion!
I wonder if we could have some kind of new staging branch that has both up to date perf and coresight changes at the same time? Either that would make things like this easier, or more complicated. I'm not sure.
I agree that it is complicated. :-(
We could do something about this if a situation arises in the future, where the kernel and perf patches are out of sync w.r.t merging. As, such the dependency on Anshuman's series is for ACPI support which Ampere system needs. I would let this one pass, given the merge window is too close.
Thanks Suzuki
-
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo -
James Clark -
Suzuki K Poulose