Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 13 Aug 2020 10:05:23 -0300 | From | Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Perf tool: Enable Arm arch timer counter and arm-spe's timestamp |
| |
Em Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 01:08:02PM +0100, John Garry escreveu: > On 13/08/2020 12:18, Will Deacon wrote: > > [ Adding John, as I only just realised he wasn't on CC and we were talking > > about him! ] > > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:59:01AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 03:53:34PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > > Em Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 10:06:53AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier escreveu: > > > > > The ARM SPE perf tools code is orphan and I don't have the cycles to > > > > > pick it up. Leo has spent a lot of time in that code and as such I > > > > > suggest that he starts maintaining it, probably following the same > > > > > kind of arrangement you and I have for coresight. > > > > > > > > Thats ok with me, I think we should reflect that on the MAINTAINERS > > > > file, right? > > > > > > > > We have this already: > > > > > > > > PERFORMANCE EVENTS SUBSYSTEM ARM64 PMU EVENTS > > > > R: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com> > > > > R: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> > > > > L: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org (moderated for non-subscribers) > > > > S: Supported > > > > F: tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/arm64/ > > > > > > > > I think we should have entries for CoreSight and ARM SPE, one listing > > > > you as the maintainer and the other listing Leo, right? > > > > > > Fine by me. I'll continue to maintain the in-kernel SPE driver, but I'd love > > > to see somebody step up to looking after the userspace code. It's seriously > > > unloved on arm64 :( > > > > > > I'd even be happy to see one or two M: entries added for > > > tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/arm64/. I realistically don't have the time to > > > take that on, but I'd be thrilled if any/all of John, Mathieu and Leo were > > > to be listed there if they are willing to do so and can spare the time to > > > look after it. Even just silly things like making sure the thing > > > cross-compiles have been broken in the recent past, so it's not necessarily > > > about handling huge amounts of incoming patches. > > > > > > In other words, rather than slice up the arm64 parts of the perf tool, I'd > > > argue in favour of a joint maintainership model for all the arm64 bits, if > > > we have a few willing volunteers. > > Right, it makes sense not to chop up too much, so happy to see "PERFORMANCE > EVENTS SUBSYSTEM ARM64 PMU EVENTS" expanded in terms of scope and > membership.
Discuss this as long as you need and then send me a patch for the MAINTAINERS file with your conclusion.
Great to see this happening,
- Arnaldo
| |