Re: [PATCH V3] perf vendor events riscv: add T-HEAD C9xx JSON file

[Namhyung Kim]

Hello,

On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 2:50 AM Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > licheerv # perf record
> > [  432.015618] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 26s!
> > [perf:117]
> > [  460.015617] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 52s!
> > [perf:117]
> > [  488.015616] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 78s!
> > [perf:117]
> > [  516.015617] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 104s!
> > [perf:117]
> >
> > But that's not related to your patch anyway.
>
> Same issue on c920, but it did not always occur.
> Like a sbi issue for T-HEAD cpus.
>
> > I am strongly against using "c9xx" wildcard, i would prefer declaring
> > them separate (especially taking in mind that c920 is c910 with vector
> > - AFAIK), but that's up to Arnaldo to decide.
>
> AFAIK, there is no reliable way to distinguish c906 and c910 cores. And
> the events of c910 and c920 are the same (according to the draft document
> of the c920).
>
> Anyway, I agree to let Arnaldo decide.
>
> > Tested-by: Nikita Shubin <n.shubin@xxxxxxxxx>

I'm collecting patches on behalf of Arnaldo this time.
It seems this patch was not picked up for a long time.

I think we can make changes for the c9xx wildcard later
if needed.  I'll process it in the current form.

Thanks,
Namhyung