From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC747C88CB4 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2023 14:00:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Qftcp0NTxz30Q4 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2023 00:00:42 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=arm.com (client-ip=217.140.110.172; helo=foss.arm.com; envelope-from=mark.rutland@arm.com; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Qftc0631Fz2yQB for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2023 23:59:58 +1000 (AEST) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA4FB1FB; Mon, 12 Jun 2023 07:00:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FVFF77S0Q05N (unknown [10.57.27.163]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CB8E63F71E; Mon, 12 Jun 2023 06:59:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 14:59:13 +0100 From: Mark Rutland To: Doug Anderson Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 15/18] watchdog/perf: Add a weak function for an arch to detect if perf can use NMIs Message-ID: References: <20230519101840.v5.18.Ia44852044cdcb074f387e80df6b45e892965d4a1@changeid> <20230519101840.v5.15.Ic55cb6f90ef5967d8aaa2b503a4e67c753f64d3a@changeid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Ian Rogers , ito-yuichi@fujitsu.com, Lecopzer Chen , ravi.v.shankar@intel.com, Catalin Marinas , ricardo.neri@intel.com, Stephane Eranian , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Guenter Roeck , Will Deacon , Daniel Thompson , Andi Kleen , Marc Zyngier , Chen-Yu Tsai , Matthias Kaehlcke , kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net, Masayoshi Mizuma , Petr Mladek , Tzung-Bi Shih , npiggin@gmail.com, Stephen Boyd , Pingfan Liu , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Sumit Garg , Randy Dunlap , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.o rg, davem@davemloft.net Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 06:55:37AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > Mark, > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 3:33 AM Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 10:18:39AM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: > > > On arm64, NMI support needs to be detected at runtime. Add a weak > > > function to the perf hardlockup detector so that an architecture can > > > implement it to detect whether NMIs are available. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson > > > --- > > > While I won't object to this patch landing, I consider it part of the > > > arm64 perf hardlockup effort. I would be OK with the earlier patches > > > in the series landing and then not landing ${SUBJECT} patch nor > > > anything else later. > > > > FWIW, everything prior to this looks fine to me, so I reckon it'd be worth > > splitting the series here and getting the buddy lockup detector in first, to > > avoid a log-jam on all the subsequent NMI bits. > > I think the whole series has already landed in Andrew's tree, > including the arm64 "perf" lockup detector bits. I saw all the > notifications from Andrew go through over the weekend that they were > moved from an "unstable" branch to a "stable" one and I see them at: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git/log/?h=mm-nonmm-stable > > When I first saw Anderw land the arm64 perf lockup detector bits in > his unstable branch several weeks ago, I sent a private message to the > arm64 maintainers (yourself included) to make sure you were aware of > it and that it hadn't been caught in mail filters. I got the > impression that everything was OK. Is that not the case? Sorry; I'm slowly catching up with a backlog of email, and I'm just behind. Feel free to ignore this; sorry for the noise! If we spot anything going wrong in testing we can look at fixing those up. Thanks, Mark.