Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 May 2022 14:50:03 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/20] perf vendors events arm64: Multiple Arm CPUs | From | Nick Forrington <> |
| |
On 19/05/2022 08:59, John Garry wrote: > On 18/05/2022 15:14, Robin Murphy wrote: >>> Sure, we should have these 32b cores supported for ARCH=arm if they >>> are supported for ARCH=arm64. But then does it even make sense to >>> have A7 support in arch/arm64? >> >> That's what I'm getting at. If it is tied to the build target as >> you've said above, then there is no point in an AArch64 perf tool >> including data for CPUs on which that tool cannot possibly run; it's >> simply a waste of space. >> >> If there is interest in plumbing in support on AArch32 builds as >> well, then I'd still be inclined to have a single arch/arm events >> directory, and either do some build-time path munging or just symlink >> an arch/arm64 sibling back to it. Yes, technically there are >> AArch64-only CPUs whose data would then be redundant when building >> for AArch32, > > If size is an issue then we have ways to cut this down, like doing the > arch standard events fixup dynamically when running perf tool, or even > not describing those events in the JSONs and rely on reading the CPU > PMU events folder to learn which of those events are supported. > > > but those are > > such a minority that it seems like an entirely reasonable compromise. > > @Nick, Can you drop the 32b core support for arm64? Or, if you really > want them, look into ARCH=arm pmu-events support?
No problem - I'll resubmit without the 32b-only CPUs.
Thanks, Nick
| |