From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 15:45:57 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 0/8] arm: perf: cleanups and initial refactoring In-Reply-To: <53B3FF1B.2090202@codeaurora.org> References: <1404227478-9645-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com> <53B3FF1B.2090202@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <20140702144557.GE24879@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 01:46:19PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote: > Hi Mark, > > On 07/01/2014 11:11 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > While reorganising the ARM perf backend to provide support for > > heterogeneous PMUs in big.LITTLE systems, I encountered a couple of > > issues requiring some preparatory work in addition to some opportunities > > for general cleanup in the backend. This series consists of those > > initial cleanups. > > > > Currently the event mapping code in the ARM perf backend requires > > multi-dimensional tables to map from common event encodings to raw > > hardware values, where empty slots must be initialised to non-zero > > values. The current way of organising this results in very large support > > files which we can simplify with some macro use to remove a few hundred > > lines and make things more legible. > > > > The PMU naming is somewhat of a mess, with most names not being > > supported by the perf tool. Given that no-one has complained, it seems > > that the PMUs are not being accessed by name in a perf context, and we > > can fix these to be consistent and usable with current tools. We update > > the OProfile name mangling to ensure that OProfile (which accesses the > > PMUs in its own namespace) are not adversely affected. > > > > To prepare for reorganisation of the PMU probing code, new > > platform_device_id values are added to allow ARMv6, ARMv7, and XScale > > PMU platform_devices to be distinguished. > > I ran Vince Weaver's perf events test suite [1] against a kernel with these > patches applied on an 8074 Dragonboard [2] and didn't see any regressions. The > patches also look good to me. > > Tested-by: Christopher Covington Thanks for testing, Christopher! Will