Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Perf tool: Enable Arm arch timer counter and arm-spe's timestamp | From | John Garry <> | Date | Thu, 13 Aug 2020 13:08:02 +0100 |
| |
On 13/08/2020 12:18, Will Deacon wrote: > [ Adding John, as I only just realised he wasn't on CC and we were talking > about him! ] > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:59:01AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 03:53:34PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: >>> Em Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 10:06:53AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier escreveu: >>>> The ARM SPE perf tools code is orphan and I don't have the cycles to >>>> pick it up. Leo has spent a lot of time in that code and as such I >>>> suggest that he starts maintaining it, probably following the same >>>> kind of arrangement you and I have for coresight. >>> >>> Thats ok with me, I think we should reflect that on the MAINTAINERS >>> file, right? >>> >>> We have this already: >>> >>> PERFORMANCE EVENTS SUBSYSTEM ARM64 PMU EVENTS >>> R: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com> >>> R: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> >>> L: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org (moderated for non-subscribers) >>> S: Supported >>> F: tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/arm64/ >>> >>> I think we should have entries for CoreSight and ARM SPE, one listing >>> you as the maintainer and the other listing Leo, right? >> >> Fine by me. I'll continue to maintain the in-kernel SPE driver, but I'd love >> to see somebody step up to looking after the userspace code. It's seriously >> unloved on arm64 :( >> >> I'd even be happy to see one or two M: entries added for >> tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/arm64/. I realistically don't have the time to >> take that on, but I'd be thrilled if any/all of John, Mathieu and Leo were >> to be listed there if they are willing to do so and can spare the time to >> look after it. Even just silly things like making sure the thing >> cross-compiles have been broken in the recent past, so it's not necessarily >> about handling huge amounts of incoming patches. >> >> In other words, rather than slice up the arm64 parts of the perf tool, I'd >> argue in favour of a joint maintainership model for all the arm64 bits, if >> we have a few willing volunteers.
Right, it makes sense not to chop up too much, so happy to see "PERFORMANCE EVENTS SUBSYSTEM ARM64 PMU EVENTS" expanded in terms of scope and membership.
| |