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

[Inochi Amaoto]

Hi, Namhyung

Since there is a fault in T-HEAD documentation, I am not sure whether
the perf events are correct. As a result, I suggest temporarily suppressing
this patch until I extract the correct events from its vendor perf driver.
I will prepare a new V4 patch once it is finished.

As for c9xx wildcard, the T-HEAD provides a `MCPUID` vendor CSR to allow
its CKLINK to get the detail CPU info. The format of this CSR are:

------------------------------------------------
|31   28|27  26|25    22|21   18|17    8|7    0|
| index | WLRL | family | class | model | WLRL |
------------------------------------------------

And for C9xx series (only index 0000 is vaild for us, as `MCPUID` also
provides other index).

| 0000 | xx | 0100 | class | xxxxxxxxxx | xxxxxxxx |

The class codes are:

C910: 0011
c906: 0100

The CSR is a M-mode only CSR, so now I'm exploring a clean way to
integrate this CSR into the kernel. Any advice?

Thanks,
Inochi

> 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
>