From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from stravinsky.debian.org (stravinsky.debian.org [82.195.75.108]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00CC1179A7; Tue, 6 May 2025 19:02:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=82.195.75.108 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1746558159; cv=none; b=SzaahI+dhU5Ty+9LOgNmW7/TfftTlfA3qY1ZjEx3Z5PSSBWSGzRvD132xUBHSOiguM7xBJCqe5BctnqJPbbkKUHq4rCePh2ZzS4NPIIxy0khI7wA9B8gsYvkVmcqNtT7/9NobcFgXAvDMdoDznD3D4T45nZqippaZIKIyJWSkEg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1746558159; c=relaxed/simple; bh=PswShjgN6Rszgz9uyGjrC76Ws2kV3BczGDl7Z32YkD8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=IrqhJ66/b7AfX/OgrALsSA0JOP457i9EaSBH1+cBgHtBYBeyLXh/cgpdtMUuEiGxlQJmIgIEjnWES8IQdWAqtkmkFL5dpaLuEwNDBZk2djX2WjDcRw90L1+hAdwhoLrfwjjjj/0ACB7kEIu5s621pN5hlI5VKQYe2ggXJUf52NY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=debian.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=debian.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=debian.org header.i=@debian.org header.b=Xei9OplX; arc=none smtp.client-ip=82.195.75.108 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=debian.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=debian.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=debian.org header.i=@debian.org header.b="Xei9OplX" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=debian.org; s=smtpauto.stravinsky; h=X-Debian-User:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=bDTAGv7oRiMJeLUnclRB63EHqXZhIX5RyFl4xNg4aaA=; b=Xei9OplXgWfccuSLrRkj3fR8qH wMLAUlTYWHm/JllhBzwLEGWWOkE86zc0G0dB0aZDahq2PD3lH5zlrwVOCfqTkpJJqPVOLjfAaHC6P qOYqZjVYXD7np/5D0sqDqkgMra1gJ16Ppqa177iusR2zf2t4AKcXqE4QT/p0EbYuTxBevM/A+Za4r KffhzqVVl13US1ZPfgdL5ptQe6MAVoiARLA9uewTn1INOnNy7mQ04tbdozEJhoHa+o4lEUoyPR89Q Jas6z/BcAASjCYctn0GcaGnZCt7F25UJs1QDDlknyqFLsPJM30WzmJNpq4jsbJQp7gHJPT5edm7hv Uu3TEQAg==; Received: from authenticated user by stravinsky.debian.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uCNYa-0052Yu-Ri; Tue, 06 May 2025 19:02:21 +0000 Received: by eldamar.lan (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3BE19BE2DE0; Tue, 06 May 2025 21:02:20 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 6 May 2025 21:02:20 +0200 From: Salvatore Bonaccorso To: Pasi Kallinen , 1104796@bugs.debian.org, Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Namhyung Kim Cc: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, regressions@lists.linux.dev, Debian Bug Tracking System Subject: perf r5101c4 counter regression Message-ID: References: <174654831962.2704.6099474499200154093.reportbug@deveel> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <174654831962.2704.6099474499200154093.reportbug@deveel> X-Debian-User: carnil Hi, Pasi Kallinen reported in Debian a regression with perf r5101c4 counter, initially it was found in https://github.com/rr-debugger/rr/issues/3949 but said to be a kernel problem. On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 07:18:39PM +0300, Pasi Kallinen wrote: > Package: src:linux > Version: 6.12.25-1 > Severity: normal > X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-amd64@lists.debian.org, paxed@alt.org > User: debian-amd64@lists.debian.org > Usertags: amd64 > > Dear Maintainer, > > perf stat -e r5101c4 true > > reports "not supported". > > The counters worked in kernel 6.11.10. > > I first noticed this not working when updating to 6.12.22. > Booting back to 6.11.10, the counters work correctly. Does this ring a bell? Would you be able to bisect the changes to identify where the behaviour changed? Regards, Salvatore