Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | From | Namhyung Kim <> | Date | Fri, 23 Jun 2023 17:17:35 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH V3] perf vendor events riscv: add T-HEAD C9xx JSON file |
| |
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
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |