Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] perf: Add ioctl for PMU driver configuration

[Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@arm.com>]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 11:03:03 +0100
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> wrote:

> On 08/16/2018 08:28 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 at 09:28, Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@arm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 10:39:13 +0100
> >> Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 01:42:27PM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 11:09, Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@arm.com> wrote:
> >>>>> The other thing that's going on here is that I'm becoming numb to the
> >>>>> loathsome "failed to mmap with 12 (Cannot allocate memory)" being
> >>>>> returned no matter what the error is/was. E.g., an error that would
> >>>>> indicate a sense of non-implementation would be much better
> >>>>> appreciated than presumably what the above is doing, i.e., returning
> >>>>> -ENOMEM.  That, backed up with specific details in the form of human
> >>>>> readable text in dmesg would be *most* welcome.
> >>>>
> >>>> As part of the refactoring of the code to support CPU-wide scenarios I
> >>>> intend to emit better diagnostic messages from the driver.  Modifying
> >>>> rb_alloc_aux() to propagate the error message generated by the
> >>>> architecture specific PMUs doesn't look hard either and I _may_ get to
> >>>> it as part of this work.
> >>>
> >>> For the record, I will continue to oppose PMU drivers that dump diagnostics
> >>> about user-controlled input into dmesg, but the coresight drivers are yours
> >>> so it's up to you and I won't get in the way!
> >>
> >> That sounds technically self-contradicting to me.  Why shouldn't
> >> coresight share the same policies as those used for PMU drivers?  Or
> >> why not allow the individual vendor PMU driver authors control the
> >> level of user-friendliness of their own drivers?
> >>
> >> That being said, Matheiu, would you accept patches that make coresight
> >> more verbose in dmesg?
> > 
> > It depends on the issue you're hoping to address.  I'd rather see the
> > root cause of the problem fixed than adding temporary code.  Suzuki
> > added the ETR perf API and I'm currently working on CPU-wide
> > scenarios.  From there and with regards to what can happen in
> > setup_aux(), we should have things covered.
> 
> I think the main issue is the lack of error code propagation from
> setup_aux() back to the perf_aux_output_handle_begin(), which always
> return -ENOMEM. If we fix that, we could get better idea of whats
> wrong.

Why get a better idea when we can get the exact details?

> If someone is planning to add verbose messages, they may do so by adding
> dev_dbg() / pr_debug(), which can be turned on as and when needed.

I disagree:  that just adds another usage and kernel configuration
obstacle.  Why not use pr_err straight up?

Kim