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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D434C5ACD9 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 23:14:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.11.253]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A2142073E for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 23:14:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="ov90TkG8" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0A2142073E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EFCE4B090; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 19:14:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Authentication-Results: mm01.cs.columbia.edu (amavisd-new); dkim=softfail (fail, message has been altered) header.i=@kernel.org Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w06iuY7IthZB; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 19:14:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79D9F4B085; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 19:14:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 134704A523 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 19:14:38 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aDaFGMffsYYy for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 19:14:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F10674A4A3 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 19:14:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from willie-the-truck (236.31.169.217.in-addr.arpa [217.169.31.236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B9B9C20674; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 23:14:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1584486875; bh=yHw9wmkRZUD7U6vWzsX9I+2UeHaJ6WKcTXK2YgtM0NQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ov90TkG86ZpHEydQCgM2v70whf8E34aREle1LDBQm45qWSKt4pgMmyL45WA2SFHqb c3Idzds5Q8YJAOZQ6xu3CxFUGgOYLHNfjBYDnRjA0If0vdQiWtYt6/LXTAtbz255sw da7d9RusApuvu6yQnM3l5rGMhGI66/k1Iz7Oo3rA= Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 23:14:31 +0000 From: Will Deacon To: Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 0/3] arm64: perf: Add support for ARMv8.5-PMU 64-bit counters Message-ID: <20200317231431.GM20788@willie-the-truck> References: <20200302181752.14251-1-mark.rutland@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200302181752.14251-1-mark.rutland@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, robin.murphy@arm.com, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, maz@kernel.org X-BeenThere: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Where KVM/ARM decisions are made List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 06:17:49PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > This is a respin of Andrew Murray's series to enable support for 64-bit > counters as introduced in ARMv8.5. > > I've given this a spin on (ARMv8.2) hardware, to test that there are no > regressions, but I have not had the chance to test in an ARMv8.5 model (which I > beleive Andrew had previously tested). > > Since v5 [1]: > * Don't treat perfmon ID fields as signed > * Fix up ID field names > * Explicitly compare ARMV8.5 PMU value I'm betting on your issue being a model bug, so I've queued this on top of Robin's enable/disable rework. Please take a look at for-next/perf [1] in case I screwed it up. Thanks, Will [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/will/linux.git/log/?h=for-next/perf _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm