From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, will@kernel.org,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
Suzuki Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V16 1/8] arm64/sysreg: Add BRBE registers and fields
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 13:52:38 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZdYAJvZf4Ut5f5Rf@FVFF77S0Q05N> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240125094119.2542332-2-anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 03:11:12PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> This adds BRBE related register definitions and various other related field
> macros there in. These will be used subsequently in a BRBE driver, which is
> being added later on.
>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
> ---
> Changes in V16:
>
> - Updated BRBINFx_EL1.TYPE = 0b110000 as field IMPDEF_TRAP_EL3
> - Updated BRBCR_ELx[9] as field FZPSS
> - Updated BRBINFINJ_EL1 to use sysreg field BRBINFx_EL1
>
> arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h | 109 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> arch/arm64/tools/sysreg | 131 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 240 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
> index c3b19b376c86..72544b5c4951 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
> @@ -272,6 +272,109 @@
>
> #define SYS_BRBCR_EL2 sys_reg(2, 4, 9, 0, 0)
>
> +#define __SYS_BRBINF(n) sys_reg(2, 1, 8, ((n) & 0xf), ((((n) & 0x10) >> 2) + 0))
> +#define __SYS_BRBSRC(n) sys_reg(2, 1, 8, ((n) & 0xf), ((((n) & 0x10) >> 2) + 1))
> +#define __SYS_BRBTGT(n) sys_reg(2, 1, 8, ((n) & 0xf), ((((n) & 0x10) >> 2) + 2))
We already have definitions for these since v6.5, added in commit:
57596c8f991c9aac ("arm64: Add debug registers affected by HDFGxTR_EL2:)
That commit also added register encoding definitions:
| #define SYS_BRBINF_EL1(n) sys_reg(2, 1, 8, (n & 15), (((n & 16) >> 2) | 0))
| #define SYS_BRBINFINJ_EL1 sys_reg(2, 1, 9, 1, 0)
| #define SYS_BRBSRC_EL1(n) sys_reg(2, 1, 8, (n & 15), (((n & 16) >> 2) | 1))
| #define SYS_BRBSRCINJ_EL1 sys_reg(2, 1, 9, 1, 1)
| #define SYS_BRBTGT_EL1(n) sys_reg(2, 1, 8, (n & 15), (((n & 16) >> 2) | 2))
| #define SYS_BRBTGTINJ_EL1 sys_reg(2, 1, 9, 1, 2)
| #define SYS_BRBTS_EL1 sys_reg(2, 1, 9, 0, 2)
I don't think we need to add new encoding definitions for BRBINF<n>_EL1,
BRBSRC<n>_EL1, or BRBTGT<n>_EL1; we can just use those existing defintions
directly. That also means we don't need to add all of the expanded 0..31
definitions; the driver can use SYS_BRBINF_EL1(n) and friends directly.
[...]
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg b/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg
> index 4c9b67934367..caf851ba5dc0 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg
> +++ b/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg
> @@ -1023,6 +1023,137 @@ UnsignedEnum 3:0 MTEPERM
> EndEnum
> EndSysreg
>
> +
> +SysregFields BRBINFx_EL1
> +Res0 63:47
> +Field 46 CCU
> +Field 45:32 CC
> +Res0 31:18
> +Field 17 LASTFAILED
> +Field 16 T
> +Res0 15:14
> +Enum 13:8 TYPE
> + 0b000000 UNCOND_DIRECT
> + 0b000001 INDIRECT
> + 0b000010 DIRECT_LINK
> + 0b000011 INDIRECT_LINK
> + 0b000101 RET
> + 0b000111 ERET
> + 0b001000 COND_DIRECT
Minor nit, but for consistency with DIRECT_LINK, could we please use
DIRECT_UNCOND and DIRECT_COND?
> + 0b100001 DEBUG_HALT
> + 0b100010 CALL
> + 0b100011 TRAP
> + 0b100100 SERROR
> + 0b100110 INSN_DEBUG
> + 0b100111 DATA_DEBUG
> + 0b101010 ALIGN_FAULT
> + 0b101011 INSN_FAULT
> + 0b101100 DATA_FAULT
> + 0b101110 IRQ
> + 0b101111 FIQ
> + 0b110000 IMPDEF_TRAP_EL3
> + 0b111001 DEBUG_EXIT
That IMPDEF_TRAP_EL3 encoding doesn't seem to exist in the latest ARM ARM (ARM
DDI 0487J.a), and I see Mark Brown checked against the "Arm A-profile
Architecture Registers" document (ARM DDI 0601 ID121123, AKA 2023-12).
Could you please mention that in the commit message, and link to that version
of the document (https://developer.arm.com/documentation/ddi0601/2023-12/) ?
That'll make it easier for anyone else to review this, and it'll be good in
case anyone needs to figure out where this came from in future.
> +EndEnum
> +Enum 7:6 EL
> + 0b00 EL0
> + 0b01 EL1
> + 0b10 EL2
> + 0b11 EL3
> +EndEnum
> +Field 5 MPRED
> +Res0 4:2
> +Enum 1:0 VALID
> + 0b00 NONE
> + 0b01 TARGET
> + 0b10 SOURCE
> + 0b11 FULL
> +EndEnum
> +EndSysregFields
The other fields here all look good per the ARM ARM and sysreg document.
> +SysregFields BRBCR_ELx
> +Res0 63:24
> +Field 23 EXCEPTION
> +Field 22 ERTN
> +Res0 21:10
> +Field 9 FZPSS
> +Field 8 FZP
> +Res0 7
> +Enum 6:5 TS
> + 0b01 VIRTUAL
> + 0b10 GUEST_PHYSICAL
> + 0b11 PHYSICAL
> +EndEnum
> +Field 4 MPRED
> +Field 3 CC
> +Res0 2
> +Field 1 ExBRE
> +Field 0 E0BRE
> +EndSysregFields
This looks good per the ARM ARM and sysreg document.
> +Sysreg BRBCR_EL2 2 4 9 0 0
> +Fields BRBCR_ELx
> +EndSysreg
> +
> +Sysreg BRBCR_EL1 2 1 9 0 0
> +Fields BRBCR_ELx
> +EndSysreg
> +
> +Sysreg BRBCR_EL12 2 5 9 0 0
> +Fields BRBCR_ELx
> +EndSysreg
These all look good per the ARM ARM and sysreg document.
Minor nit, but could we please list thse in order:
BRBCR_EL1
BRBCR_EL12
BRBCR_EL2
... since that way the names are ordered alphnumerically, which is what we've
done for other groups (e.g. PIR_EL{1,12,2}), and it's the way the ARM ARM
happens to be ordered.
> +Sysreg BRBFCR_EL1 2 1 9 0 1
> +Res0 63:30
> +Enum 29:28 BANK
> + 0b0 FIRST
> + 0b1 SECOND
Nit: since this is a 2-bit field, please pad these as '0b00' and '0b01'.
Could we please use BANK_0 and BANK_1 rather than FIRST and SECOND?
That'd also be easier to use behind macros.
> +EndEnum
> +Res0 27:23
> +Field 22 CONDDIR
> +Field 21 DIRCALL
> +Field 20 INDCALL
> +Field 19 RTN
> +Field 18 INDIRECT
> +Field 17 DIRECT
> +Field 16 EnI
> +Res0 15:8
> +Field 7 PAUSED
> +Field 6 LASTFAILED
> +Res0 5:0
> +EndSysreg
Other than the nit, this looks good per the ARM ARM and sysreg document.
[...]
> +Sysreg BRBIDR0_EL1 2 1 9 2 0
> +Res0 63:16
> +Enum 15:12 CC
> + 0b101 20_BIT
> +EndEnum
> +Enum 11:8 FORMAT
> + 0b0 0
> +EndEnum
> +Enum 7:0 NUMREC
> + 0b0001000 8
> + 0b0010000 16
> + 0b0100000 32
> + 0b1000000 64
This is an 8-bit field; please pad these to 8 bits (they all need a leading
'0').
> +EndEnum
> +EndSysreg
Aside from the comments above, this looks good to me.
Mark.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, will@kernel.org,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
Suzuki Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V16 1/8] arm64/sysreg: Add BRBE registers and fields
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 13:52:38 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZdYAJvZf4Ut5f5Rf@FVFF77S0Q05N> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240125094119.2542332-2-anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 03:11:12PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> This adds BRBE related register definitions and various other related field
> macros there in. These will be used subsequently in a BRBE driver, which is
> being added later on.
>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
> ---
> Changes in V16:
>
> - Updated BRBINFx_EL1.TYPE = 0b110000 as field IMPDEF_TRAP_EL3
> - Updated BRBCR_ELx[9] as field FZPSS
> - Updated BRBINFINJ_EL1 to use sysreg field BRBINFx_EL1
>
> arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h | 109 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> arch/arm64/tools/sysreg | 131 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 240 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
> index c3b19b376c86..72544b5c4951 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
> @@ -272,6 +272,109 @@
>
> #define SYS_BRBCR_EL2 sys_reg(2, 4, 9, 0, 0)
>
> +#define __SYS_BRBINF(n) sys_reg(2, 1, 8, ((n) & 0xf), ((((n) & 0x10) >> 2) + 0))
> +#define __SYS_BRBSRC(n) sys_reg(2, 1, 8, ((n) & 0xf), ((((n) & 0x10) >> 2) + 1))
> +#define __SYS_BRBTGT(n) sys_reg(2, 1, 8, ((n) & 0xf), ((((n) & 0x10) >> 2) + 2))
We already have definitions for these since v6.5, added in commit:
57596c8f991c9aac ("arm64: Add debug registers affected by HDFGxTR_EL2:)
That commit also added register encoding definitions:
| #define SYS_BRBINF_EL1(n) sys_reg(2, 1, 8, (n & 15), (((n & 16) >> 2) | 0))
| #define SYS_BRBINFINJ_EL1 sys_reg(2, 1, 9, 1, 0)
| #define SYS_BRBSRC_EL1(n) sys_reg(2, 1, 8, (n & 15), (((n & 16) >> 2) | 1))
| #define SYS_BRBSRCINJ_EL1 sys_reg(2, 1, 9, 1, 1)
| #define SYS_BRBTGT_EL1(n) sys_reg(2, 1, 8, (n & 15), (((n & 16) >> 2) | 2))
| #define SYS_BRBTGTINJ_EL1 sys_reg(2, 1, 9, 1, 2)
| #define SYS_BRBTS_EL1 sys_reg(2, 1, 9, 0, 2)
I don't think we need to add new encoding definitions for BRBINF<n>_EL1,
BRBSRC<n>_EL1, or BRBTGT<n>_EL1; we can just use those existing defintions
directly. That also means we don't need to add all of the expanded 0..31
definitions; the driver can use SYS_BRBINF_EL1(n) and friends directly.
[...]
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg b/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg
> index 4c9b67934367..caf851ba5dc0 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg
> +++ b/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg
> @@ -1023,6 +1023,137 @@ UnsignedEnum 3:0 MTEPERM
> EndEnum
> EndSysreg
>
> +
> +SysregFields BRBINFx_EL1
> +Res0 63:47
> +Field 46 CCU
> +Field 45:32 CC
> +Res0 31:18
> +Field 17 LASTFAILED
> +Field 16 T
> +Res0 15:14
> +Enum 13:8 TYPE
> + 0b000000 UNCOND_DIRECT
> + 0b000001 INDIRECT
> + 0b000010 DIRECT_LINK
> + 0b000011 INDIRECT_LINK
> + 0b000101 RET
> + 0b000111 ERET
> + 0b001000 COND_DIRECT
Minor nit, but for consistency with DIRECT_LINK, could we please use
DIRECT_UNCOND and DIRECT_COND?
> + 0b100001 DEBUG_HALT
> + 0b100010 CALL
> + 0b100011 TRAP
> + 0b100100 SERROR
> + 0b100110 INSN_DEBUG
> + 0b100111 DATA_DEBUG
> + 0b101010 ALIGN_FAULT
> + 0b101011 INSN_FAULT
> + 0b101100 DATA_FAULT
> + 0b101110 IRQ
> + 0b101111 FIQ
> + 0b110000 IMPDEF_TRAP_EL3
> + 0b111001 DEBUG_EXIT
That IMPDEF_TRAP_EL3 encoding doesn't seem to exist in the latest ARM ARM (ARM
DDI 0487J.a), and I see Mark Brown checked against the "Arm A-profile
Architecture Registers" document (ARM DDI 0601 ID121123, AKA 2023-12).
Could you please mention that in the commit message, and link to that version
of the document (https://developer.arm.com/documentation/ddi0601/2023-12/) ?
That'll make it easier for anyone else to review this, and it'll be good in
case anyone needs to figure out where this came from in future.
> +EndEnum
> +Enum 7:6 EL
> + 0b00 EL0
> + 0b01 EL1
> + 0b10 EL2
> + 0b11 EL3
> +EndEnum
> +Field 5 MPRED
> +Res0 4:2
> +Enum 1:0 VALID
> + 0b00 NONE
> + 0b01 TARGET
> + 0b10 SOURCE
> + 0b11 FULL
> +EndEnum
> +EndSysregFields
The other fields here all look good per the ARM ARM and sysreg document.
> +SysregFields BRBCR_ELx
> +Res0 63:24
> +Field 23 EXCEPTION
> +Field 22 ERTN
> +Res0 21:10
> +Field 9 FZPSS
> +Field 8 FZP
> +Res0 7
> +Enum 6:5 TS
> + 0b01 VIRTUAL
> + 0b10 GUEST_PHYSICAL
> + 0b11 PHYSICAL
> +EndEnum
> +Field 4 MPRED
> +Field 3 CC
> +Res0 2
> +Field 1 ExBRE
> +Field 0 E0BRE
> +EndSysregFields
This looks good per the ARM ARM and sysreg document.
> +Sysreg BRBCR_EL2 2 4 9 0 0
> +Fields BRBCR_ELx
> +EndSysreg
> +
> +Sysreg BRBCR_EL1 2 1 9 0 0
> +Fields BRBCR_ELx
> +EndSysreg
> +
> +Sysreg BRBCR_EL12 2 5 9 0 0
> +Fields BRBCR_ELx
> +EndSysreg
These all look good per the ARM ARM and sysreg document.
Minor nit, but could we please list thse in order:
BRBCR_EL1
BRBCR_EL12
BRBCR_EL2
... since that way the names are ordered alphnumerically, which is what we've
done for other groups (e.g. PIR_EL{1,12,2}), and it's the way the ARM ARM
happens to be ordered.
> +Sysreg BRBFCR_EL1 2 1 9 0 1
> +Res0 63:30
> +Enum 29:28 BANK
> + 0b0 FIRST
> + 0b1 SECOND
Nit: since this is a 2-bit field, please pad these as '0b00' and '0b01'.
Could we please use BANK_0 and BANK_1 rather than FIRST and SECOND?
That'd also be easier to use behind macros.
> +EndEnum
> +Res0 27:23
> +Field 22 CONDDIR
> +Field 21 DIRCALL
> +Field 20 INDCALL
> +Field 19 RTN
> +Field 18 INDIRECT
> +Field 17 DIRECT
> +Field 16 EnI
> +Res0 15:8
> +Field 7 PAUSED
> +Field 6 LASTFAILED
> +Res0 5:0
> +EndSysreg
Other than the nit, this looks good per the ARM ARM and sysreg document.
[...]
> +Sysreg BRBIDR0_EL1 2 1 9 2 0
> +Res0 63:16
> +Enum 15:12 CC
> + 0b101 20_BIT
> +EndEnum
> +Enum 11:8 FORMAT
> + 0b0 0
> +EndEnum
> +Enum 7:0 NUMREC
> + 0b0001000 8
> + 0b0010000 16
> + 0b0100000 32
> + 0b1000000 64
This is an 8-bit field; please pad these to 8 bits (they all need a leading
'0').
> +EndEnum
> +EndSysreg
Aside from the comments above, this looks good to me.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-21 13:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 93+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-25 9:41 [PATCH V16 0/8] arm64/perf: Enable branch stack sampling Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-25 9:41 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-25 9:41 ` [PATCH V16 1/8] arm64/sysreg: Add BRBE registers and fields Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-25 9:41 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-25 14:20 ` Mark Brown
2024-01-25 14:20 ` Mark Brown
2024-02-21 13:52 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2024-02-21 13:52 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-21 13:59 ` Mark Brown
2024-02-21 13:59 ` Mark Brown
2024-02-21 14:05 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-21 14:05 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-21 14:07 ` Mark Brown
2024-02-21 14:07 ` Mark Brown
2024-02-23 5:28 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-23 5:28 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-23 13:31 ` Mark Brown
2024-02-23 13:31 ` Mark Brown
2024-02-23 6:36 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-23 6:36 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-26 4:22 ` [PATCH] arm64/hw_breakpoint: Determine lengths from generic perf breakpoint macros Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-26 4:22 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-26 4:26 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-26 4:26 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-26 4:24 ` [PATCH] arm64/sysreg: Add BRBE registers and fields Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-26 4:24 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-26 13:18 ` Mark Brown
2024-02-26 13:18 ` Mark Brown
2024-02-27 10:06 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-27 10:06 ` Mark Rutland
2024-01-25 9:41 ` [PATCH V16 2/8] KVM: arm64: Prevent guest accesses into BRBE system registers/instructions Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-25 9:41 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-29 12:15 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2024-01-29 12:15 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2024-01-30 3:40 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-30 3:40 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-21 14:01 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-21 14:01 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-23 7:28 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-23 7:28 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-27 10:04 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-27 10:04 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-27 11:13 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-27 11:13 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-29 11:45 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2024-02-29 11:45 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2024-02-29 12:50 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-29 12:50 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-29 15:43 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2024-02-29 15:43 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2024-03-01 7:46 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-03-01 7:46 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-03-01 12:49 ` Mark Rutland
2024-03-01 12:49 ` Mark Rutland
2024-01-25 9:41 ` [PATCH V16 3/8] drivers: perf: arm_pmuv3: Enable branch stack sampling framework Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-25 9:41 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-25 13:44 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2024-01-25 13:44 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2024-01-29 4:35 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-29 4:35 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-21 17:25 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-21 17:25 ` Mark Rutland
2024-03-01 5:37 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-03-01 5:37 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-03-01 13:52 ` Mark Rutland
2024-03-01 13:52 ` Mark Rutland
2024-01-25 9:41 ` [PATCH V16 4/8] drivers: perf: arm_pmuv3: Enable branch stack sampling via FEAT_BRBE Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-25 9:41 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-21 18:23 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-21 18:23 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-28 8:11 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-28 8:11 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-28 11:52 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-28 11:52 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-29 8:55 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-29 8:55 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-29 11:49 ` [PATCH] arm64/boot: Enable EL2 requirements for BRBE Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-25 9:41 ` [PATCH V16 5/8] KVM: arm64: nvhe: Disable branch generation in nVHE guests Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-25 9:41 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-29 12:20 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2024-01-29 12:20 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2024-01-30 3:41 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-30 3:41 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-29 18:40 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-02-29 18:40 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-03-01 2:20 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-03-01 2:20 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-25 9:41 ` [PATCH V16 6/8] perf: test: Speed up running brstack test on an Arm model Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-25 9:41 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-25 9:41 ` [PATCH V16 7/8] perf: test: Remove empty lines from branch filter test output Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-25 9:41 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-25 9:41 ` [PATCH V16 8/8] perf: test: Extend branch stack sampling test for Arm64 BRBE Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-25 9:41 ` Anshuman Khandual
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZdYAJvZf4Ut5f5Rf@FVFF77S0Q05N \
--to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=james.clark@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.